And all are investments. Investing to see that you get a thing. Investing to see that a thing happens. Investing in a concept that will become some sort of thing.
In this case, it's a state goal they refuse to honor.
No, it's an agreement between someone giving money(investment of capital) in exchange for specifically stated items based on achieving specific goals. In this case, they decided not to give what was promised.
So the investor can take the same actions anyone can take when someone say they with do A for X, and then decided not to do A after they get X.
False. You are using the wrong use of investment. You are thinking about stocks and trades. There are many kinds.
"Investment is time, energy, or matter spent in the hope of future benefits actualized within a specified date or time frame. Investment has different meanings in economics and finance."
There are different type of investments. You should probably learn that.
Kickstarter is an investment. It's an exchange of money in something that does not yet exist in exchange for a gain latter. Usually a product. I"Ts generally a good investment because you don't spend anything if certain goals are not achieved. And you can gain more if certain goals are exceeded. In this case, they failed to deliver on a promise, and a fairly important promise at that.
If he was ale to talk to someone to make threats, he could have used the same time to rebut. Also, there is this thing called the internet, and they could ahve posted rebuttals. The media isn't one group think. Fox news love to suck business cock, and they would give them the time.
Personal attacks against critics make the media worse, not better.
One incident did define GG. When they where shown to be the vile people they are, the narrative changed. Then people who didn't know the origin got fooled into thinking it was about journalism; which it is not about.
GG is a perfect example of why ignoring trolls does not work. It allows the to control the message. You can post your fallacious questions, and you can act like it's something else, but I was at ground zero, and I watched it unfold. IT was horrifying, and I was shocked to watch it grow. I've seen those people attack to many women.
And how can their be favoritism when the person did get anything in return?
And the middle is often a moving target. Regulation comes in, fixes the issue it was suppose to, then someone finds away to abuse it so t needs to change, or the reason for the regulation is done away with do to some technological change. I wish people would remember that it shifts when having these discussions instead of acting like there is a magic perfect spot.
of critics is only used to scare people away. Counter the points of critics, that's discourse. Attacking their personal lives? that's threatening and intimidation. Uber is no better then the mob.
Screw em. I don't care how good their business model might be, or how convent it is. I wont use them.
Because for the vast majority of them, the game portrays a positive image for the 'vicious musclebound gun toting maniacs'
"The most obvious negative female stereotypes in my opinion are Disney princesses (mindless bimbos in fluffy dresses), which are targeted at the youngest and most impressionable, but somehow i don't think thats what they want to target."
Are you serious? This has been an issue for a long time. IT has been brought up a lot. You will not the new princess(last decade or so?) are not like that at all.
Stop it. " continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas. " Telling you the game contains sexist attitudes is not telling you it's not appropriate. It's giving you informaiton so you can make the decision as to whether or not to play the game. Pointing something out isn't not the same as taking something away or dictating what is appropriate for you.
"...ruining my games." Because the whole damn worlds is all about you. Clearly point tout sexism mean there going to ruin everything for you.
The rest of you post is a non sequitor.
"but women find that acceptable so it's not a big deal." you base this on.. what, exactly? Oh, your ass.
It's about portraying women with degrading properties, when men are not.
If you leave women out because they are women, that's sexist.
And most minecraft characters are generic looking. If you see them as a specific gender, that's your bias. So, in that situation, how to the people evaluating the game deal with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice geocities link.
No, it's not a gift. A gift mean you expect nothing in return, and nothing was promised in return.
You are ignorant of what the word 'Gift' means.
Yes, there is a contract.
When you say when we achieve X amount of money, we will do A. That's a contract.
And all are investments.
Investing to see that you get a thing.
Investing to see that a thing happens.
Investing in a concept that will become some sort of thing.
In this case, it's a state goal they refuse to honor.
No, it's an agreement between someone giving money(investment of capital) in exchange for specifically stated items based on achieving specific goals.
In this case, they decided not to give what was promised.
So the investor can take the same actions anyone can take when someone say they with do A for X, and then decided not to do A after they get X.
False. You are using the wrong use of investment. You are thinking about stocks and trades. There are many kinds.
"Investment is time, energy, or matter spent in the hope of future benefits actualized within a specified date or time frame. Investment has different meanings in economics and finance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
There are different type of investments.
You should probably learn that.
Kickstarter is an investment. It's an exchange of money in something that does not yet exist in exchange for a gain latter. Usually a product. I"Ts generally a good investment because you don't spend anything if certain goals are not achieved. And you can gain more if certain goals are exceeded.
In this case, they failed to deliver on a promise, and a fairly important promise at that.
seven eight it.
Actually, his example was fine, your understanding of the market is, well, broken.
4. class action lawsuit.
Trolls, that's why.
You can preview your post. Stop pushing you lazy onto other people.
If he was ale to talk to someone to make threats, he could have used the same time to rebut. Also, there is this thing called the internet, and they could ahve posted rebuttals.
The media isn't one group think. Fox news love to suck business cock, and they would give them the time.
Personal attacks against critics make the media worse, not better.
One incident did define GG. When they where shown to be the vile people they are, the narrative changed. Then people who didn't know the origin got fooled into thinking it was about journalism; which it is not about.
GG is a perfect example of why ignoring trolls does not work. It allows the to control the message.
You can post your fallacious questions, and you can act like it's something else, but I was at ground zero, and I watched it unfold.
IT was horrifying, and I was shocked to watch it grow. I've seen those people attack to many women.
And how can their be favoritism when the person did get anything in return?
And the middle is often a moving target. Regulation comes in, fixes the issue it was suppose to, then someone finds away to abuse it so t needs to change, or the reason for the regulation is done away with do to some technological change.
I wish people would remember that it shifts when having these discussions instead of acting like there is a magic perfect spot.
How do you know GM did that?
of critics is only used to scare people away.
Counter the points of critics, that's discourse. Attacking their personal lives? that's threatening and intimidation.
Uber is no better then the mob.
Screw em. I don't care how good their business model might be, or how convent it is.
I wont use them.
I like when someone presents a link that proves the exact opposite of their point.
Because for the vast majority of them, the game portrays a positive image for the 'vicious musclebound gun toting maniacs'
"The most obvious negative female stereotypes in my opinion are Disney princesses (mindless bimbos in fluffy dresses), which are targeted at the youngest and most impressionable, but somehow i don't think thats what they want to target."
Are you serious? This has been an issue for a long time. IT has been brought up a lot. You will not the new princess(last decade or so?) are not like that at all.
Which he did not suggest.
Protip: 'primarily' does not equal 'only'
Stop it.
" continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas. "
Telling you the game contains sexist attitudes is not telling you it's not appropriate. It's giving you informaiton so you can make the decision as to whether or not to play the game.
Pointing something out isn't not the same as taking something away or dictating what is appropriate for you.
"...ruining my games."
Because the whole damn worlds is all about you. Clearly point tout sexism mean there going to ruin everything for you.
The rest of you post is a non sequitor.
"but women find that acceptable so it's not a big deal."
you base this on.. what, exactly? Oh, your ass.
It's about portraying women with degrading properties, when men are not.
Because you are slow, I will repeat the important bit from the poster you are replying to:
"women are more likely to be displayed in roles perceived as *de*grading, whereas men are portrayed with attributes perceived as positive"
Maybe you need smaller words until you can pass 6th grade comprehension?
What it tells me is that you aren't paying attention. Because, yes, it is in the mainstream.
This is people trying to do something productive about it.
Are you seriously that stupid?
If you leave women out because they are women, that's sexist.
And most minecraft characters are generic looking. If you see them as a specific gender, that's your bias.
So, in that situation, how to the people evaluating the game deal with it?
Because GG has ruined the conversation.
Embargoes, in and of themselves, aren't unethical.