Out of 10+ drops last night (120+ players, or 110+ if I don't include myself in the ten drops) I saw 3 people using 3PV. Anecdotal evidence only, and I'd be in a higher player bracket but still....
Hundreds of players,out of a player base of at least tens of thousands. If you look at the original amount of money raised and assume that most people bought one of the top 2 tiers then there were at least 50,000 players at launch and probably a lot more now.
There's a definite negative agenda behind the original summary and article. The bulk of the community ARE happy with the changes and have continued to play. It's only a vocal minority that have screamed at the top of their lungs for attention, I sat in (online) on a couple of #saveMWO meetings and apart from a few well considered opinions the bulk of the talk was whining/specualtion about things that hadn't happened yet or were basically untrue.
big eyes, long fingers,big hips, small breasts etc will start to be pinpointed to a single gene, protein or step malfunctioning
Those things are a "malfunction"?
(But not your small dick, right? That's 'normal'...)
To be fair, he never said anything about those demonstrated traits being exhibited by a female of the species. I'd be disconcerted to have small breasts as a male... and possibly excited.
So lots of posts that appealed to more people overall, were somehow better than a few posts (that were espousing a narrow viewpoint) that were liked by a small group of people who potentially like every post?
Women on the other hand, are getting pregnant no matter what, unless they very ugly or genetically unable.
Tell that to any number of childless couples, I'm sure the'll love hearing your philosophy (end sarcasm). Not to mention that the problem may lay on the male side, women without children aren't necessarily childless because of something wrong with *them*.
I'm assuming (hoping) that your post was sarcastic in nature. My point was that the summary doesn't appear to match the article. The summary implies that less women are invited due to sexism, the article indicates that less women accept the invites and then provides a theory of why that's the case.
The researchers also found that women were underrepresented at the 2011 congress because men accepted invitations more often than women.
So it's not an ingrained sexism on the behalf of the congress, but according to the next quote based on biological differences:
The most demanding phase of a career in Biology, when it is important to communicate one’s findings, and to build networks with other scientists, coincides with the age at which women's fertility starts to decline, meaning it is their last chance to have a family - unlike men.
Slashdot Mirror
They've already back-pedalled on this policy faster than Tony Abbott walking into a gay bathhouse.
"Williams notes that from the Government Accountability Office found that only 20 percent of patent litigation was brought by so-called trolls."
That frankly surprises me, I would've thought it was higher.
Out of 10+ drops last night (120+ players, or 110+ if I don't include myself in the ten drops) I saw 3 people using 3PV. Anecdotal evidence only, and I'd be in a higher player bracket but still....
Hundreds of players,out of a player base of at least tens of thousands. If you look at the original amount of money raised and assume that most people bought one of the top 2 tiers then there were at least 50,000 players at launch and probably a lot more now.
There's a definite negative agenda behind the original summary and article. The bulk of the community ARE happy with the changes and have continued to play. It's only a vocal minority that have screamed at the top of their lungs for attention, I sat in (online) on a couple of #saveMWO meetings and apart from a few well considered opinions the bulk of the talk was whining/specualtion about things that hadn't happened yet or were basically untrue.
"Grossly exaggerating" the power of "media barons", think about that for a second. Think about what you just wrote.
Murdoch vs Microsoft, IMHO Murdoch is worse. At least Microsoft isn't actively trying to subvert political processes through media control.
I wonder if the people of the US are ever going to rise up, or if it just gets much worse before it gets better.
Most of the arguments I've seen so far haven't been "Is what they are doing legal?", instead the arguments have been "Is what they are doing right?"
As a geek, you only watch Star Trek:Enterprise to complain about:
1. How Scott Bakula killed the franchise (untrue, so people really think Trek will stay dead?).
2. How under-rated it was (wrong, it was rated exactly where it should be, just your opinion is different).
3. How tired Star Trek is now (possibly true)
tsk tsk everyone knows the stargate is under Cheyenne Mountain, it probably a storage facility for pilfered alien tech
You mean like a warehouse? I'd bet that the NSA would have at least 12 of them prior to this facility.
Or just some Area to keep the stuff in, they'd have to have at least 50 of them by now.
Hey China, there's this place called Westboro Baptist Church, I heard that they said nasty things about your government. (crosses fingers and waits).
40 years ago? You think it was stopped then?
I'll make sure to get him some flowers and a get well soon card then.
Either your expectations are too high, or your sense of wonder is too low, to get much out of this. Personally, I loved it.
See a doctor, that's not healthy.
big eyes, long fingers,big hips, small breasts etc will start to be pinpointed to a single gene, protein or step malfunctioning
Those things are a "malfunction"?
(But not your small dick, right? That's 'normal'...)
To be fair, he never said anything about those demonstrated traits being exhibited by a female of the species. I'd be disconcerted to have small breasts as a male... and possibly excited.
Hope AND change? I thought it said 'Hope of change'.
So lots of posts that appealed to more people overall, were somehow better than a few posts (that were espousing a narrow viewpoint) that were liked by a small group of people who potentially like every post?
Women on the other hand, are getting pregnant no matter what, unless they very ugly or genetically unable.
Tell that to any number of childless couples, I'm sure the'll love hearing your philosophy (end sarcasm). Not to mention that the problem may lay on the male side, women without children aren't necessarily childless because of something wrong with *them*.
A nicely mathematical solution, I wonder what inspired you to sugge... oooooohhhh.
Gender makes no difference? What the hell am I lusting after then?
I'm assuming (hoping) that your post was sarcastic in nature. My point was that the summary doesn't appear to match the article. The summary implies that less women are invited due to sexism, the article indicates that less women accept the invites and then provides a theory of why that's the case.
The researchers also found that women were underrepresented at the 2011 congress because men accepted invitations more often than women.
So it's not an ingrained sexism on the behalf of the congress, but according to the next quote based on biological differences:
The most demanding phase of a career in Biology, when it is important to communicate one’s findings, and to build networks with other scientists, coincides with the age at which women's fertility starts to decline, meaning it is their last chance to have a family - unlike men.
You forgot some punctuation~