We're in the end still talking about watching people play video games. Unless they are WAY more interesting than the average "Let's play" on YouTube, I fail to see the appeal.
So? I fail to see the appeal of watching men chase a ball around a field and yet it's a big business.
Do not under-estimate the draw of watching people play games. The only reason sport was previously so popular was due to lack of competition for youngsters attention. This is no longer the case - casual games are taking in the majority of the eyeballs of young people these days. So is the internet, online forums, social networking, etc.
Sport matches now have to compete with facebook, words-with-friends, twitter, etc. for attention, and it seems like sport matches are losing this competition for eyeballs. eSports is just another eyeball grabber (a small one at that); the days of celebrity sports worship is drawing to an end due to all the competition, not because of eSports alone.
Yes there is - just not in those words.
What it says is: transgender is not a psychiatric disorder, but community responses can cause psychiatric disorders in transgender people.
That right there. That backs up what I said.
No, it does not. Are you are making the rather stupid claim that suicides are caused by psychiatric disorders?
Just because something isn't a psychiatric disorder that doesn't mean that those particular people have a lower rate of suicide. All official stats show transgender people to be more likely than the norm to commit suicide.
If there was any evidence that suicide rates in accepted transgender people were any higher than the national averages for their age groups - that line could not, by law, have been in there.
There's just one little problem with your rant.
These laws aren't preventing men from going into the women's bathroom.
No, ya moron, existing laws prevent males going into female bathrooms. What's happening is that a group of people want to change existing laws to add exceptions that will allow a certain class of male to enter female bathrooms.
I'm particularly interested in seeing how you get women to accept that.
Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are
1) Accepted by their family and community
2) Allowed to transition
3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.
In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.
Sorry, but nowhere in the DSM is there support for your claim "In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups". If you think it's there, quote chapter and verse (Yeah, I've already read most of it, and didn't find the claim you made to be supported).
PS. I already know you didn't read the manual, which is why you aren't able to quote chapter and verse. If you think it is there, show us.
Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are
1) Accepted by their family and community
2) Allowed to transition
3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.
In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.
You ever wonder why men aren't allowed in women's bathrooms? Why there are laws against men going into the wrong bathroom?
You think men asked for separate bathrooms?
Seriously, you're a fucking moron if you think women are going to agree to non-women using their bathrooms!
It isn't bigots, or homophobes, or transphobes who want a female-only bathroom, it's women. Normal women, lesbian women, old women, young women, thin women, fat women...
Why don't you be the first to stand up and tell women that they must accept men into their bathrooms? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Even better, why not let women vote on this - ask them outright "Are you okay with men in the women's bathroom?" I can guarantee that the majority of western women, used to entitlements, are going to vocally protest any attempt to make them share their bathrooms with males.
No, you're trying to wrap up blind prejudice as sense, but it won't work.
It's a clash of ideologies. The majority of women by a large margin are going to object to men using their bathroom.
Women didn't get their own bathroom because men were afraid of cooties - they got their own bathroom because they wanted privacy from men.
They take their tops off in the bathroom. They discuss feminine issues in the bathroom. They occasionally even change clothes in the bathroom. They do not want to do all of this in front of men. They tend to be okay doing it in front of other women, though.
The are two possible solutions:
a) Make all bathrooms unisex (good luck getting women to give that up), or
b) Require that anyone who is obviously male use a male bathroom and anyone who is obviously female use a female bathroom. You have a beard? Go into the mens. You're wearing lipstick and fill out a bra? Go into the womens. You're androgynous? Go into either.
The "solution" of saying you are what you identify as is stupid. It's better to say "You think you're male/female? You'd better look like one"
The law doesn't care and judges don't like smart arses. If you are systematically paying women with the job relevant skills in the same roles different amounts then it's illegal.
Wrong. If you are systematically offering women with relevant skills a job in the same roles [as men] different amounts then it's illegal.
Judges aren't going to bat an eye if you show them offer letters that all start at the same amount.
Do you want negotiation to be made illegal? Should companies refuse candidates that ask for more?
I simply cannot comprehend what MI5 are doing to have managed to have missed this one.
What makes you think that they missed this one? It's ironic that here on/. I was recently involved in another thread (Starship Troopers) where it was pointed out, repeatedly, that it's in the states interest to have an attack to retaliate against.
Government cannot seek expansive and invasive powers without a reason. Terrorist attacks are that reason.
I like XML too. But only because I had to write an XML parser from scratch in Java as my final project before graduating from college. That level of detail tends to stick in your head.
XML Parser as a graduation project? I wrote one in ANSI-C hosted over a drunken weekend during my third divorce. I believe it's still used on some backend BSD system somewhere.
The whole story is actually a troll in this case. The implication is that the site failed because of censorship, but actually Voat, the hard core free speech Reddit rip-off isn't doing so great either.
Since you are using alexa to make the point, note that voat.co is #5823 while the site that failed due to censorship is #184839. If your point is that both are doing equally poor then you point is wrong. The non-censored one is doing 2 orders of magnitude better than the SJW/safespace one.
Must be fun working in marketing and trying to explain to advertisers why "watchpeopledie", "fatpeoplehate" and "pizzagate" at the top three search terms that bring people to your site.
Your point of view is, as I keep pointing out, not as widespread or as popular as you appear to believe it is. Most people tend towards egalitarianism and reject fascism.
Starship Troopers is a major disappointment, but it was intended to be Starship Troopers from Heinlein from very early on - I followed its development, it wasnt shot or even pitched as a different film.
I thought it was originally a different movie called Bug Hunt:
It originally started out as an unrelated script called Bug Hunt, before the studio acquired the rights to the novel and Verhoeven, disgusted by what little he was able to stomach of Heinlein's book, had the script rewritten to deepen the satire.
TBH, I didn't follow it very closely but much of the information about this movie says it was originally called bughunt, and that the script was written before they decided to "base" it on the book.The link I gave above is one of many (IIRC, this info was also in a book written by the films producer/scriptwriter/someone).
If Starship Troopers is any gauge, it isn't even enough plot for one movie.
Why would Starship Troopers serve as a gauge? The movie wasn't even based on the book of the same name, you know. They made a different movie and then named it Starship Troopers because they already had the rights and wanted some name recognition.
It won't be practical to tax electricity in the same way as fossil fuels. Electricity needs to be cheap for people to maintain a good lifestyle at home and for businesses to operate. It's not easy to detect when a car is plugged in vs. a kettle.
I agree, 8 years is optimistic, but then again we area already seeing massive adoption in some commercial spaces and in some EU countries.
I suggest you look up the word "massive". Significant? Certainly. Large? No, not really. Massive? You must be high.
If self-driving car services do develop as expected,
Expected by who? Current SDCs perform only marginally better than those from over 20 years ago while using 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more computing power.
When you throw 100x to 1000x more resources at a problem over a 20 year period and only get a 1.5% improvement it is safe to say that the problem is harder than it looks.
I see no indications that there is relative progress being made on the SDC front.
What does pay rate have to do with it? You'd call the gas station attendant shit-for-brains to his face, just because he's not paid much? What about your waiter?
I address waiters as "sir' and waitresses as "miss" (unless they are very old, in which case they'd get "Ma'am"). Try it next time you order your meal - saying "That will be all, sir. Thank you".
I know its difficult for you to understand, maybe its your parents fault for not teaching you simple respect, but its not an "attitiude" to be expected to address your superiors. with. simple. respect. Fucking kids. And their parents for failing them.
That's the problem. Expectation. You should expect nothing. You want simple respect? How about behaving and carrying yourself in a manner that garners it. Respect is EARNED, not expected or demanded.
This attitude is being repeated all over this thread. Listen up buttercup, you aren't earning any fucking respect by talking with intentionally broken grammar. Yes, yes, I understand that when you talk to your peers with fractured English, they don't lose respect for you. Most other people (myself as a past lecturer included) lose respect for you when you can't be bothered to even communicate with us.
You know, I will look over the occasional typo, I will happily communicate in an informal manner and I'll make allowances if English is not your primary language. I am even more tolerant should the message have "sent from my mobile device" at the bottom, as it can be hard to sometimes type properly on a mobile. But I will not entertain your insistence that your mangled communications MUST NOT detract from your message. If your message is not worth your time for you to compose it, then it's not worth my time to read it.
You can be a "superior" in rank, but if your attitude doesn't garner it, you don't get respect.
That sword cuts both ways: Intentionally mangled communications is a great indicator of your attitude, and, consequently, the amount of respect you deserve. People will use your communications to determine how much of respect to give you.
Slashdot Mirror
We're in the end still talking about watching people play video games. Unless they are WAY more interesting than the average "Let's play" on YouTube, I fail to see the appeal.
So? I fail to see the appeal of watching men chase a ball around a field and yet it's a big business.
Do not under-estimate the draw of watching people play games. The only reason sport was previously so popular was due to lack of competition for youngsters attention. This is no longer the case - casual games are taking in the majority of the eyeballs of young people these days. So is the internet, online forums, social networking, etc.
Sport matches now have to compete with facebook, words-with-friends, twitter, etc. for attention, and it seems like sport matches are losing this competition for eyeballs. eSports is just another eyeball grabber (a small one at that); the days of celebrity sports worship is drawing to an end due to all the competition, not because of eSports alone.
Yes there is - just not in those words.
What it says is: transgender is not a psychiatric disorder, but community responses can cause psychiatric disorders in transgender people.
That right there. That backs up what I said.
No, it does not. Are you are making the rather stupid claim that suicides are caused by psychiatric disorders?
Just because something isn't a psychiatric disorder that doesn't mean that those particular people have a lower rate of suicide. All official stats show transgender people to be more likely than the norm to commit suicide.
If there was any evidence that suicide rates in accepted transgender people were any higher than the national averages for their age groups - that line could not, by law, have been in there.
There is, it can, it is.
There's just one little problem with your rant.
These laws aren't preventing men from going into the women's bathroom.
No, ya moron, existing laws prevent males going into female bathrooms. What's happening is that a group of people want to change existing laws to add exceptions that will allow a certain class of male to enter female bathrooms.
I'm particularly interested in seeing how you get women to accept that.
http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or...
You said:
Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are 1) Accepted by their family and community 2) Allowed to transition 3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.
In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.
Sorry, but nowhere in the DSM is there support for your claim "In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups". If you think it's there, quote chapter and verse (Yeah, I've already read most of it, and didn't find the claim you made to be supported).
PS. I already know you didn't read the manual, which is why you aren't able to quote chapter and verse. If you think it is there, show us.
Yes, it's been extensively studied. The suicide rate goes down for transgender people who are 1) Accepted by their family and community 2) Allowed to transition 3) With minimal societal discrimination and rejection.
In fact, it goes down to the normal average for their age groups.
Bold claims, all of them. Citation needed.
What in the holy fuck do you think is going on in bathrooms? People go in, do their business, wash their hands (at least in the blue states) and then go about their lives. I guarantee you've been in bathrooms with transgender people, and somehow they managed to resist the urge to grope your baby dick.
Republicans are against big government but want government to monitor their fucking bathrooms. Makes a lot of sense.
You ever wonder why men aren't allowed in women's bathrooms? Why there are laws against men going into the wrong bathroom?
You think men asked for separate bathrooms?
Seriously, you're a fucking moron if you think women are going to agree to non-women using their bathrooms!
It isn't bigots, or homophobes, or transphobes who want a female-only bathroom, it's women. Normal women, lesbian women, old women, young women, thin women, fat women...
Why don't you be the first to stand up and tell women that they must accept men into their bathrooms? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Even better, why not let women vote on this - ask them outright "Are you okay with men in the women's bathroom?" I can guarantee that the majority of western women, used to entitlements, are going to vocally protest any attempt to make them share their bathrooms with males.
No, you're trying to wrap up blind prejudice as sense, but it won't work.
It's a clash of ideologies. The majority of women by a large margin are going to object to men using their bathroom.
Women didn't get their own bathroom because men were afraid of cooties - they got their own bathroom because they wanted privacy from men.
They take their tops off in the bathroom. They discuss feminine issues in the bathroom. They occasionally even change clothes in the bathroom. They do not want to do all of this in front of men. They tend to be okay doing it in front of other women, though.
The are two possible solutions:
a) Make all bathrooms unisex (good luck getting women to give that up), or
b) Require that anyone who is obviously male use a male bathroom and anyone who is obviously female use a female bathroom. You have a beard? Go into the mens. You're wearing lipstick and fill out a bra? Go into the womens. You're androgynous? Go into either.
The "solution" of saying you are what you identify as is stupid. It's better to say "You think you're male/female? You'd better look like one"
I'm not familiar with US law,
And yet you're arguing about it.
The law doesn't care and judges don't like smart arses. If you are systematically paying women with the job relevant skills in the same roles different amounts then it's illegal.
Wrong. If you are systematically offering women with relevant skills a job in the same roles [as men] different amounts then it's illegal.
Judges aren't going to bat an eye if you show them offer letters that all start at the same amount.
Do you want negotiation to be made illegal? Should companies refuse candidates that ask for more?
Isn't this the outcome the US hard-left movement was asking for - banning fake-news?
I simply cannot comprehend what MI5 are doing to have managed to have missed this one.
What makes you think that they missed this one? It's ironic that here on /. I was recently involved in another thread (Starship Troopers) where it was pointed out, repeatedly, that it's in the states interest to have an attack to retaliate against.
Government cannot seek expansive and invasive powers without a reason. Terrorist attacks are that reason.
Yes because everybody knows he could have used a regular expression.
I don't recall using regex for my XML parser in Java.
I don't think you can. XML is not a regular language.
I like XML too. But only because I had to write an XML parser from scratch in Java as my final project before graduating from college. That level of detail tends to stick in your head.
XML Parser as a graduation project? I wrote one in ANSI-C hosted over a drunken weekend during my third divorce. I believe it's still used on some backend BSD system somewhere.
The whole story is actually a troll in this case. The implication is that the site failed because of censorship, but actually Voat, the hard core free speech Reddit rip-off isn't doing so great either.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/...
Since you are using alexa to make the point, note that voat.co is #5823 while the site that failed due to censorship is #184839. If your point is that both are doing equally poor then you point is wrong. The non-censored one is doing 2 orders of magnitude better than the SJW/safespace one.
Must be fun working in marketing and trying to explain to advertisers why "watchpeopledie", "fatpeoplehate" and "pizzagate" at the top three search terms that bring people to your site.
Your point of view is, as I keep pointing out, not as widespread or as popular as you appear to believe it is. Most people tend towards egalitarianism and reject fascism.
Very few juries are likely to put a seemingly nice guy in prison for 20 years because of a "he-said-she-said" accusation of date rape.
You want people to be put away on the basis of unsubstantiated accusation alone? If there's evidence it's not "he-said-she-said", after all.
Starship Troopers is a major disappointment, but it was intended to be Starship Troopers from Heinlein from very early on - I followed its development, it wasnt shot or even pitched as a different film.
I thought it was originally a different movie called Bug Hunt:
It originally started out as an unrelated script called Bug Hunt, before the studio acquired the rights to the novel and Verhoeven, disgusted by what little he was able to stomach of Heinlein's book, had the script rewritten to deepen the satire.
TBH, I didn't follow it very closely but much of the information about this movie says it was originally called bughunt, and that the script was written before they decided to "base" it on the book.The link I gave above is one of many (IIRC, this info was also in a book written by the films producer/scriptwriter/someone).
If Starship Troopers is any gauge, it isn't even enough plot for one movie.
Why would Starship Troopers serve as a gauge? The movie wasn't even based on the book of the same name, you know. They made a different movie and then named it Starship Troopers because they already had the rights and wanted some name recognition.
Like which one?
Starcraft -> Broodwars -> WingsOfLiberty ->HeartOfTheSwarm -> LegacyOfTheVoid.
That probably requires an entire season to make sense, although to be fair the games spanned two decades.
A trucker has to sleep. A self driving truck owned by a trucker can work all the time between servicing
Why would it be owned by the trucker? Why would a business outsource their trucking when the trucks drive themselves?
On the other hand, if they can retrofit their own rig to be self-driving, wouldn't that turn their rig into a money-maker?
If the rig is self-driving, why would a company hire a person to own the truck that drives itself?
ICE automobiles reached their lowest possible price point ages ago - digital tech play by different rules.
Ahh ... "This Time It's Different". WTF, are you literally 14?
It won't be practical to tax electricity in the same way as fossil fuels. Electricity needs to be cheap for people to maintain a good lifestyle at home and for businesses to operate. It's not easy to detect when a car is plugged in vs. a kettle.
I agree, 8 years is optimistic, but then again we area already seeing massive adoption in some commercial spaces and in some EU countries.
I suggest you look up the word "massive". Significant? Certainly. Large? No, not really. Massive? You must be high.
If self-driving car services do develop as expected,
Expected by who? Current SDCs perform only marginally better than those from over 20 years ago while using 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more computing power.
When you throw 100x to 1000x more resources at a problem over a 20 year period and only get a 1.5% improvement it is safe to say that the problem is harder than it looks.
I see no indications that there is relative progress being made on the SDC front.
What does pay rate have to do with it? You'd call the gas station attendant shit-for-brains to his face, just because he's not paid much? What about your waiter?
I address waiters as "sir' and waitresses as "miss" (unless they are very old, in which case they'd get "Ma'am"). Try it next time you order your meal - saying "That will be all, sir. Thank you".
I know its difficult for you to understand, maybe its your parents fault for not teaching you simple respect, but its not an "attitiude" to be expected to address your superiors. with. simple. respect. Fucking kids. And their parents for failing them.
That's the problem. Expectation. You should expect nothing. You want simple respect? How about behaving and carrying yourself in a manner that garners it. Respect is EARNED, not expected or demanded.
This attitude is being repeated all over this thread. Listen up buttercup, you aren't earning any fucking respect by talking with intentionally broken grammar. Yes, yes, I understand that when you talk to your peers with fractured English, they don't lose respect for you. Most other people (myself as a past lecturer included) lose respect for you when you can't be bothered to even communicate with us.
You know, I will look over the occasional typo, I will happily communicate in an informal manner and I'll make allowances if English is not your primary language. I am even more tolerant should the message have "sent from my mobile device" at the bottom, as it can be hard to sometimes type properly on a mobile. But I will not entertain your insistence that your mangled communications MUST NOT detract from your message. If your message is not worth your time for you to compose it, then it's not worth my time to read it.
You can be a "superior" in rank, but if your attitude doesn't garner it, you don't get respect.
That sword cuts both ways: Intentionally mangled communications is a great indicator of your attitude, and, consequently, the amount of respect you deserve. People will use your communications to determine how much of respect to give you.
It says green in the name of Greenland.
It's mostly white.
So? It says forest in the name of 'Rainforest Foundation Fund'. Turns out, most things are named after their actual characteristics.
PS, The existence of outliers does not invalidate the existence of the non-outliers.