- I know that straight women like hot guys, just like straight men like hot women. There's a hundred thousand years of evolution behind it. Pretending it is not true is stupid.
Well, since we're on the topic of evolution... straight women don't like hot guys as much as they like guys that are reliable. Specifically that they don't stray and they're financially stable enough to support her (and, eventually, or concurrently, children). You think "til death do us part" is tacked on to the end of marriage vows purely for comedic effect?
Women are naturally drawn to men with a pronounced V shape from their waist to their shoulders -- a trait I do not posess. And men are naturally drawn to big chests. That is reality.
For fucking, yes. Those men are typically have the best genes. But not for raising children. In fact, until recently with the advent of paternity testing, society couldn't objectively prove this... but a lot of men wind up raising kids that aren't theirs. An awful lot. And if you dig into the law, you'll find that this could cause such a problem... that even if the kid isn't yours, you're still going to wind up paying child support. Yes, moral outrage. Yes, evil. No, won't change.
Fine, let's talk about that, and maybe start by making advertising not count as a business expense for tax purposes.
Well, that's stupid... You don't advertise for shits and giggles...you do it because it increases sales volume, and in turn, profits. I can't think of anything more business related than advertising besides sales and production.
ut if you are upset because it is objectification (or, more realistically, because you are, like me, not hot) -- you've got to get over it. Pretending it is not true is just lying to yourself. It will not change reality.
Maybe you need to stop wallowing in your own self-pity. Fast fact: You wanna know which stripper makes the most cash? It's not the "platinum pussy" (that's actually the term used, and yes, it's misogynist, but it's also pretty fucking descriptive, so I'm going with it) -- it's the girl with above average, but not stellar looks. She's the one that guys will think they have a chance with.
Now you're not a stripper. You don't have boobs. But take it from every woman, ever -- there are ways to improve your appearance and attractiveness beyond what your genetics gifted (cursed?) you with. There's excercise. Hygiene. Makeup. Clothes. Money. Social status items. Hell, even just being in the right social circle can give you a huge boost. And attitude? Huge. Remember what I said above -- girls look for men who are reliable. Especially as we get older... because, since we're being honest here... our looks have a "Use by" date. It's not fair, but past a certain age, guys just aren't going to get hard looking at you. They might not even look at you period. So you'd better have something else to offer.
It's the same for us girls as it is for you guys. Stop wallowing in your own self-pity, and go shell out a few sheckles for some quality clothes, get your ass in shape, and start walking with your head up and making eye contact with the world. Unless you have some kind of case of horrible boils, a face that can crack glass, or fat rolls that can swallow small children... you've got the same chances as the rest of us.
I find your comment quite misogynist. These girls are just working. They aren't whores.
Well, the comment was misogynist. That said, it may not be entirely inaccurate -- they aren't selling sex per-se, but they are selling sex appeal, and when you think about it, that's the same thing the prostitute is selling: Not the sex, but the experience of sex. I know a lot of people make a distinction between, say, a beauty pageant and the prostitute, but in my book, you're in the same line of work... you just offer different services. And yes, I say that as a woman. I don't find a particular problem with selling sex, as long as it's a choice made freely and without duress. And I've been blasted out of the water by self-described feminists for the suggestion that prostitution is just a simplified version of many long term relationships, at least in economic terms -- they're getting paid cash for sex... whereas the "relationship" people are bartering.
If you dig down enough into most feminist arguments, you will run into privilege... they have voracious appetite for vilifcation of the male priviledge, veering most verbosely...*cough*...They are hesitant to acknowledge the duality of sexism. But there is nothing so equal as a fair market exchange; Which is precisely why you'll get flamed to oblivion the moment you start talking about sex for money. It's a dirty little secret that marriage, relationships, etc., are all a way of converting sex to dollars... while that isn't their only purpose, there are definately economics involved... and most relationships end over issues relating to money.
Bottom line: OP was a misogynist, but being a whore shouldn't be looked down upon. It's just as legitimate of a profession as, say, network administrator.
It so absolutely makes business sense to repel half of your target market (and more than that of your potential target market) in order to pursue a small marginal edge in your existing customer base
Why not? It's how politics has worked for years...
Well, that or maybe the corporate management are indulging themselves at the expense of the business itself. But we know that that never happens.
Well, they by and far are making profit. How's living in mom's basement going for you? If this was one or two companies, I might say you have something, but when it's almost every company in the industry doing it... and they're not suddenly going the way of the do-do bird... there may be a flaw in your cunning deductions.
When there start to be 45% females in the attendance the situation will change.
That would imply 45% of females would want to work professionally in the industry. From what I've seen, a lot of the video game industry is programmers, engineers, etc., and support staff around that. That's long hours, high stress, and (when you divide hours by weekly pay, rather than just looking at net weekly pay)... not the greatest pay. Not many women I know are interested in jobs where they are expected, even demanded of, working under those conditions... or around them for that matter.
On the whole, women want flexible hours, a low stress environment, and regular time off, for a wide variety of reasons I won't get into here... but that is the trend. Men on the other hand are happy to scream "For the Horde!" and grind away their health, teeth, and sacrifice their very lives for a little bit of extra cash. Until either or both of these trends change, I don't see many women getting involved professionally in the video game industry.
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.
The average gamer is in their late 20s to 30s and despise 13 year old boys... usually either because it's a twitch game and they're being douchebags or have no lives outside the game (there is, afterall, no method yet of creating public servers that match people based on skill automatically... and attempts to create tiered servers have been a cluster-fuck of fail...), or because their maturity is so blatantly painful that it's only really tolerable with large amounts of beer and/or marijuana... which seem to go commonly together on MMOs.
It's all in good fun.
It's not in good fun. What they're selling is an experience (you thought they were selling games! lulz), and sexual overatures make the experience seem more pleasant.
E3 exists to show off games and try to get people into the idea of buying them, not to pander to feminist sensibilities.
"Pander to feminist sensibilities". Yeah... because it's the 21st century and we should all be in the kitchen barefoot making sandwiches, right?? Here's a thought: The 48% of women behind the purchase of said games may be tired of "pandering to male chauvinism"... Which I guess judging by your commentary you think is okay and preferred?
How about instead of "pandering" we simply make games that have realistic depictions of men and women, with realistic gender roles, based on the context and environment the game (story?) is taking place in? As Joss Whedon once said -- he never set out to make strong female characters, he set out to make strong characters that happened to be female.
Now, which game do you think will be of higher quality, sell better, and provide a better experience to the majority of its potential player base -- Chauvinism 1.0, Feminism 1.0, or Just Fucking People 1.0 ?
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.
Most trade shows look like this. There's an old adage in marketing: Sex sells. It doesn't matter if 46, or 48%, or even 51% of the population is women buying video games. We have a culture that endorses the objectification of women, to the point that women aren't making purchasing decisions based on the endorsement of a scantily clad woman -- but they aren't not making a purchasing decision on that basis either. And that's the crux of the matter. Sex sells games to men.. and for women, well... as long as it isn't driving them away, who cares?
Yes, the 600,000 polygon "realistic boob bounce" graphics are in many games... but we'll play them anyway because hey, if we can't escape the blatant sexism everywhere else... why would video games be different? Not to say I wouldn't appreciate a knob or switch in the options to say "Disable 13 Year Old Boy Mode", but I'm not going to go all "Achievement Unlocked: Raging Bitch Mode" because of it either. And that's what we inevitably are labelled should we ask for realistic looking women, heroes, etc., rather than the "armor bikinis" and the boobs bigger than their heads...
Again, not to say it's right, just that, as a woman gamer... I pick and choose my battles. And if I had one wish I could cast upon the entire video game industry, it wouldn't be "and make girls in games realistic and playable"... but to bomb Square Enix and it's peripheral companies into oblivion because if ever there was a plague of locusts to descend upon everything we love and enjoy in the world... it's Square Enix. x_x
I think I know the source of this legislation: Given the high cost of the new XBone One, our legislators are probably the only ones that can afford them.
... it doesn't pass a strict Constitutional muster.
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18: The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.
The law as it stands is clearly following a different philosophy than the only justified one...
"The only justified one" mandate is not listed in the Constitution. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out?
Believe it or not, the law can be wrong, and often is.
Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences. Well, I disagree with the speed limit down my road... it's not in the "public's benefit", as I'm the public, and I see no benefit in it. VRRRRRrooooom!
Also, your broken latin phrase doesn't apply, since the law is not harsh, but injust.
This just in: Fining Grandma a couple hundred grand, stealing away her retirement fund, and shoving her into the street over circumstantial evidence she may have downloaded a single song is not harsh.
but the bigger flaw is that it's based in medieval economics, and has no place in the modern world.
So we have a complex marble-cake system of Demesne, feudal lords, and serfdom, and more urgently: We don't have taxes to worry about, just as long as we produce at least one son for the military? Or... perhaps, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about and are going for emotional rhetoric.
'Copyright' originated from the right to copy, back when it conveyed a positive right to make copies, because it was part of a censorship regime in which proliferation of unsanctioned knowledge was forbidden.
The term "asshat" originated from the two root words, ass, which refers to a donkey, and hat, an ornamental head wear. Therefore, to call someone an "asshat" means they are a hat-wearing donkey. When the king hears of your blaspheme, it'll be off with your head.
Sweat of the brow arguments are legally invalid in regards to copyright law, per Feist v. Rural
Amazing. First "the law can be wrong, and often is", so I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find your rhetoric including an argument about the legitimacy of the law. Perhaps it's only certain laws we should follow. You know, like a law buffet. Just put on your plate what looks tasty and ignore the rest.
And ethically, sharing information is generally a good thing, with only a few exceptions. I do no oppose supporting the arts, and I likely have done more towards that end than you have.
Well, as I have done more than just "support" the arts, but actually been the starving artist, I do oppose the arts... unless of course you're going into them either because you're gay, or really really want to piss off your parents. Otherwise, get a real job -- there's no money in art. Okay, maybe I don't oppose it per-se, but let's just say don't quit your day job, mmm?
And as for sharing information; I suppose now's a bad time to point out that information comes in more than two varieties (one and zero)... and amazingly, different kinds of information has different value. You can't abstract so far away from what it represents to say it's just "information"... This is a false equivocation in the extreme.
ou've also thrown out the term 'freeloading,' yet another sign of an incompetent copyright propone
The editors should have linked to it in the summary. They should fix the oversight and link to it now.
The editors are now owned an operated by a corporation. As a corporation they can be sued. As they can be sued, they aren't going to partake of legal action that might jeopardize their profits. This isn't like Digg or a dozen other sites that, upon hearing from their users they had caved to political pressure mounted a massive PR campaign.
The slashdot of years past no longer exists. It won't take the chance anymore. In other news, what I really want to know is why torrent sites aren't going to.onion domains... which can't be taken down by any government order. As a 'hidden service', they're just a new tor circuit connection away from restarting... no DNS, no jurisdictional issues... not much chance of finding out even where they really are. And the.torrent files and magnet links don't take up much bandwidth, unlike the P2P transfers, which don't involve the site anyway...
I really don't get why they're sticking with blockable technologies... maybe they're just stubborn or trying to prove a point.
This in itself is a good thing, to prevent older exploited code form communication, and to make sure clients are using the same basic resources and interfaces to any underlying APIs.
Yeah, because we all know there's big money to be made in hackers exploiting buffer overflows in a scrabble client. Besides, 'powned' is only worth 12 points. I'm not writing an exploit for 12 stupid points.
For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country. We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism." We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators. We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them. That same year, the government continued to trumpet that a 98 year old man, on his deathbed, recanted and said that the Rosenbergs were spies... but the press quietly buried what he said right after: That the principle charge against them, the reason they were executed -- passing secrets about how to build the atom bomb, they were innocent of. They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.
So I'm not sure your claim that the USSR and the USA were significantly different in their propaganda campaigns... In fact, I would argue they were more or less the same, both in substance and quantity. But I'd be happy to entertain any significant act that you feel the USSR undertook that didn't have a parallel from the USA.
A couple weeks ago, I walked by a Microsoft store. First time I'd seen one. It looked nice and peaceful, a respite from the crowds of shoppers outside.
Yeah, I walked into one, once. The salesman immediately tried to get me to dance in front of a Kinect. The results gathered more of a crowd than the Kinect ever could. I'm not sure what this says more about... that white girls can't dance, or that Kinects just aren't that interesting.
As I've pointed out before in this thread... It was a typo. Funny thing is, 'd' and 'x' are right next to each other on the keyboard, and vt-d is different than vt-x. But whatever... why read comments elsewhere in the thread?
Bullshit. Even ESX/ESXi can work just fine without VT-d. The only thing you lose is I/O pass-through. Cut out the hyperbole. The fact that you can explicitly disable VT-d in VMWare's settings disproves your ridiculous claims.
VMWare just called: Something about you being wrong. I did make a typo confusing VT-d with VT-x, but the point is that these features being disabled will make those CPUs less desireable for virtualization, if not outright impossible. Which is what Intel is aiming for; Market segmentation means you can charge more for certain features... and virtualization has become all the rage in data centers, so why not have them pay through the nose... and just burn a few fuses out for the unwashed masses and charge a lot less to them?
Nevermind that some of those "unwashed masses" are professionals who want to work on this technology outside of work... or are enthusiasts. If they don't have the cash, fuck 'em, right?
In my experiences, they have always outperformed Intel's processors, and generally cost half as much.
That hasn't been the case for several generations of processor design, unfortunately. The top end of the AMD processor line can't compete with Intel on performance. That's why they've gotten so cheap -- so OEMs build systems on them. The 'Intel Tax' puts a lot of their mid-range and above stuff out of reach of the average consumer, and generally you're only finding them in laptops now because of the superior power usage and thermals...
If you want per-unit performance today, you buy Intel. If you want commodity, you buy AMD.
Life's too short- skip the anxiety and run your processor at it's rated speed.
With liquid cooling, your processor can run significantly above its rated speed because most failures are based on thermal overload. The core in your "slower" processor is the same as a "faster" one, but it failed qualification at some point, and it's not due to a physical defect per-se but because thermal tolerances are so tight that there may be a circuit cluster that becomes unstable due to parasitics; Usually it's highly localized heating. Liquid cooling can bring not just that component, but all the others, into a better thermal profile, leading to increased stability at all clock rates over air cooling.
The setup costs for liquid cooling are high, but it is an investment that can last a decade or more, as the only moving component is the pump. Electricity costs for a typical single or dual cpu design is quite low. When you consider the total cost of ownership for your system, the higher performance from overclocking versus buying a cpu rated for the same but air cooled can make it a sound investment.
Of course, many enthusiasts neglect to install such new equipment; the same enthusiasts who don't buy a UPS after blowing $4 grand on their rig... but that's a personal problem, not a technological one. If you are such an enthusiast and have had a bad experience with overclocking, it is no surprise. It is not something you can just go into the BIOS, make a few settings, and be done -- there are tests to be done, often fans to be upgraded at the least, case design becomes a major consideration, etc. In fact, many integrated systems ship with a heat sink that is not properly mounted... to save a few extra cents knowing that it'll take a few years for that CPU to burn out and by then you'll want another system anyway.
You really need to know what you're doing, but... if you do, there is a financial and performance payoff that makes it worthwhile.
Go look up the spec sheets for Sandy CPUs. Or better yet Google 3570K and VT-d. Surprise!
Sorry, my bad. I confused VT-d with VT-x. Yes, you're correct -- it won't run an ESX server, but I use Workstation, so it's been fine for me. That sucks though -- I know a lot of people who build dedicated lab machines on a rack; I don't have the funds to lay out on something that complex, nor the space where I live right now, but I can see how that would screw you over... especially when VMWare's hardware requirements white sheet doesn't specifically list it either.:(
This kind of cpu fragmentation I think is an attempt to create new markets where they can charge more, and it's frustrating because there's no technological reason for it. Where's government regulation when you really need it?
Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that.
Well, there's the problem with trends. Assuming they go on forever means that, for example, everyone should now have about 52 model-Ts in their garage. That said... the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.
The question isn't whether the planet can support that number, but what kind of life will be possible in that future. We may wind up breeding ourselves into anarchy as all but the richest of us struggle to keep enough food on our plates and death by starvation will be the number one cause of death worldwide. I'm not sure what kind of society or civilization will be possible in that world... it may be that humanity simply can't advance beyond a certain point because we wind up spreading like a virus, consuming all resources until none are left and then dying off, like any other invasive species.
The sad part is... despite our own self-awareness and consciousness, it will have proven we can't outgrow our animalistic nature and so, at least in evolutionary terms, humanity is a dead end. Something else will have to evolve out of the situation before we can progress beyond it.
This can of worms has been opened awhile, you've obviously not tried to build a K based machine running virtualization. See my post below...
Got one right now, actually; It's a i5-3570K. To the best of my knowledge, no features are disabled compared to other models based on this core. But vmware needs VT-d to function, and if they kill this feature off, it won't work. So, no, it hasn't been opened for "awhile", this is something that's started rolling out in the last year.
The K-series parts lack the support for transactional memory extensions and VT-d device virtualization
Yeah, well, fun fact... a lot of enthusiasts like myself like things like VMWare, which depend on this kind of thing. Deleting those features from the unlocked line means I just won't buy them... one of the big drivers for overclocking is to run virtualization. You might think it's "just gamers" doing this, but a lot of us do network and system administration and deployment and like the ability of having a "lab in a box" offered by current processors. You take that away and you're going to find your bottom line hurting, possibly more than a little.
I don't know which of your marketing assclowns came up with this idea as a revenue generating measure, but it's going to backfire in their face and I hope when it does you fire their ass, apologize, and never try this again. You're only succeeding in driving us towards commodity hardware like AMDs offerings... All they need to capitalize on the market you've just shit on now is offer mainboards with multiple sockets for their CPUs and make the mainboards cheap and the core system very energy efficient... and not only will the enthusiasts ditch you, but so will the data centers...
You're opening a can of worms here. Bad plan, darlings.
They do cave in when they think their jobs are on the line..
But they aren't. Everyone in every national-level election for the past twenty years has had their campaign paid for by the same people, often these same people (and groups) sponsored both candidates. And when they leave Congress, they'll have a job waiting for them with one of those groups... on one condition: They don't listen to you or your concerns.
The most we get anymore now from public outrage is this -- open letters that basically say "Nothing is wrong and we're working to fix it as quickly as possible!"
Slashdot Mirror
- I know that straight women like hot guys, just like straight men like hot women. There's a hundred thousand years of evolution behind it. Pretending it is not true is stupid.
Well, since we're on the topic of evolution... straight women don't like hot guys as much as they like guys that are reliable. Specifically that they don't stray and they're financially stable enough to support her (and, eventually, or concurrently, children). You think "til death do us part" is tacked on to the end of marriage vows purely for comedic effect?
Women are naturally drawn to men with a pronounced V shape from their waist to their shoulders -- a trait I do not posess. And men are naturally drawn to big chests. That is reality.
For fucking, yes. Those men are typically have the best genes. But not for raising children. In fact, until recently with the advent of paternity testing, society couldn't objectively prove this... but a lot of men wind up raising kids that aren't theirs. An awful lot. And if you dig into the law, you'll find that this could cause such a problem... that even if the kid isn't yours, you're still going to wind up paying child support. Yes, moral outrage. Yes, evil. No, won't change.
Fine, let's talk about that, and maybe start by making advertising not count as a business expense for tax purposes.
Well, that's stupid... You don't advertise for shits and giggles...you do it because it increases sales volume, and in turn, profits. I can't think of anything more business related than advertising besides sales and production.
ut if you are upset because it is objectification (or, more realistically, because you are, like me, not hot) -- you've got to get over it. Pretending it is not true is just lying to yourself. It will not change reality.
Maybe you need to stop wallowing in your own self-pity. Fast fact: You wanna know which stripper makes the most cash? It's not the "platinum pussy" (that's actually the term used, and yes, it's misogynist, but it's also pretty fucking descriptive, so I'm going with it) -- it's the girl with above average, but not stellar looks. She's the one that guys will think they have a chance with.
Now you're not a stripper. You don't have boobs. But take it from every woman, ever -- there are ways to improve your appearance and attractiveness beyond what your genetics gifted (cursed?) you with. There's excercise. Hygiene. Makeup. Clothes. Money. Social status items. Hell, even just being in the right social circle can give you a huge boost. And attitude? Huge. Remember what I said above -- girls look for men who are reliable. Especially as we get older... because, since we're being honest here... our looks have a "Use by" date. It's not fair, but past a certain age, guys just aren't going to get hard looking at you. They might not even look at you period. So you'd better have something else to offer.
It's the same for us girls as it is for you guys. Stop wallowing in your own self-pity, and go shell out a few sheckles for some quality clothes, get your ass in shape, and start walking with your head up and making eye contact with the world. Unless you have some kind of case of horrible boils, a face that can crack glass, or fat rolls that can swallow small children... you've got the same chances as the rest of us.
Get moving, soldier.
I find your comment quite misogynist. These girls are just working. They aren't whores.
Well, the comment was misogynist. That said, it may not be entirely inaccurate -- they aren't selling sex per-se, but they are selling sex appeal, and when you think about it, that's the same thing the prostitute is selling: Not the sex, but the experience of sex. I know a lot of people make a distinction between, say, a beauty pageant and the prostitute, but in my book, you're in the same line of work... you just offer different services. And yes, I say that as a woman. I don't find a particular problem with selling sex, as long as it's a choice made freely and without duress. And I've been blasted out of the water by self-described feminists for the suggestion that prostitution is just a simplified version of many long term relationships, at least in economic terms -- they're getting paid cash for sex... whereas the "relationship" people are bartering.
If you dig down enough into most feminist arguments, you will run into privilege... they have voracious appetite for vilifcation of the male priviledge, veering most verbosely...*cough*...They are hesitant to acknowledge the duality of sexism. But there is nothing so equal as a fair market exchange; Which is precisely why you'll get flamed to oblivion the moment you start talking about sex for money. It's a dirty little secret that marriage, relationships, etc., are all a way of converting sex to dollars... while that isn't their only purpose, there are definately economics involved... and most relationships end over issues relating to money.
Bottom line: OP was a misogynist, but being a whore shouldn't be looked down upon. It's just as legitimate of a profession as, say, network administrator.
It so absolutely makes business sense to repel half of your target market (and more than that of your potential target market) in order to pursue a small marginal edge in your existing customer base
Why not? It's how politics has worked for years...
Well, that or maybe the corporate management are indulging themselves at the expense of the business itself. But we know that that never happens.
Well, they by and far are making profit. How's living in mom's basement going for you? If this was one or two companies, I might say you have something, but when it's almost every company in the industry doing it... and they're not suddenly going the way of the do-do bird... there may be a flaw in your cunning deductions.
In support of rapant sexism: E13 2013 Booth Babe Pics
FTFY
When there start to be 45% females in the attendance the situation will change.
That would imply 45% of females would want to work professionally in the industry. From what I've seen, a lot of the video game industry is programmers, engineers, etc., and support staff around that. That's long hours, high stress, and (when you divide hours by weekly pay, rather than just looking at net weekly pay)... not the greatest pay. Not many women I know are interested in jobs where they are expected, even demanded of, working under those conditions... or around them for that matter.
On the whole, women want flexible hours, a low stress environment, and regular time off, for a wide variety of reasons I won't get into here... but that is the trend. Men on the other hand are happy to scream "For the Horde!" and grind away their health, teeth, and sacrifice their very lives for a little bit of extra cash. Until either or both of these trends change, I don't see many women getting involved professionally in the video game industry.
Once again Poe's Law gets a field test.
I was thinking more of Peter's Law personally. With an attitude like that, this guy's only hope is speed dating in a very dark and noisy room...
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.
The average gamer is in their late 20s to 30s and despise 13 year old boys... usually either because it's a twitch game and they're being douchebags or have no lives outside the game (there is, afterall, no method yet of creating public servers that match people based on skill automatically... and attempts to create tiered servers have been a cluster-fuck of fail...), or because their maturity is so blatantly painful that it's only really tolerable with large amounts of beer and/or marijuana... which seem to go commonly together on MMOs.
It's all in good fun.
It's not in good fun. What they're selling is an experience (you thought they were selling games! lulz), and sexual overatures make the experience seem more pleasant.
E3 exists to show off games and try to get people into the idea of buying them, not to pander to feminist sensibilities.
"Pander to feminist sensibilities". Yeah... because it's the 21st century and we should all be in the kitchen barefoot making sandwiches, right?? Here's a thought: The 48% of women behind the purchase of said games may be tired of "pandering to male chauvinism"... Which I guess judging by your commentary you think is okay and preferred?
How about instead of "pandering" we simply make games that have realistic depictions of men and women, with realistic gender roles, based on the context and environment the game (story?) is taking place in? As Joss Whedon once said -- he never set out to make strong female characters, he set out to make strong characters that happened to be female.
Now, which game do you think will be of higher quality, sell better, and provide a better experience to the majority of its potential player base -- Chauvinism 1.0, Feminism 1.0, or Just Fucking People 1.0 ?
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.
Most trade shows look like this. There's an old adage in marketing: Sex sells. It doesn't matter if 46, or 48%, or even 51% of the population is women buying video games. We have a culture that endorses the objectification of women, to the point that women aren't making purchasing decisions based on the endorsement of a scantily clad woman -- but they aren't not making a purchasing decision on that basis either. And that's the crux of the matter. Sex sells games to men.. and for women, well... as long as it isn't driving them away, who cares?
Yes, the 600,000 polygon "realistic boob bounce" graphics are in many games... but we'll play them anyway because hey, if we can't escape the blatant sexism everywhere else... why would video games be different? Not to say I wouldn't appreciate a knob or switch in the options to say "Disable 13 Year Old Boy Mode", but I'm not going to go all "Achievement Unlocked: Raging Bitch Mode" because of it either. And that's what we inevitably are labelled should we ask for realistic looking women, heroes, etc., rather than the "armor bikinis" and the boobs bigger than their heads...
Again, not to say it's right, just that, as a woman gamer... I pick and choose my battles. And if I had one wish I could cast upon the entire video game industry, it wouldn't be "and make girls in games realistic and playable"... but to bomb Square Enix and it's peripheral companies into oblivion because if ever there was a plague of locusts to descend upon everything we love and enjoy in the world... it's Square Enix. x_x
I think I know the source of this legislation: Given the high cost of the new XBone One, our legislators are probably the only ones that can afford them.
... it doesn't pass a strict Constitutional muster.
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.
The law as it stands is clearly following a different philosophy than the only justified one...
"The only justified one" mandate is not listed in the Constitution. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out?
Believe it or not, the law can be wrong, and often is.
Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences. Well, I disagree with the speed limit down my road... it's not in the "public's benefit", as I'm the public, and I see no benefit in it. VRRRRRrooooom!
Also, your broken latin phrase doesn't apply, since the law is not harsh, but injust.
This just in: Fining Grandma a couple hundred grand, stealing away her retirement fund, and shoving her into the street over circumstantial evidence she may have downloaded a single song is not harsh.
but the bigger flaw is that it's based in medieval economics, and has no place in the modern world.
So we have a complex marble-cake system of Demesne, feudal lords, and serfdom, and more urgently: We don't have taxes to worry about, just as long as we produce at least one son for the military? Or... perhaps, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about and are going for emotional rhetoric.
'Copyright' originated from the right to copy, back when it conveyed a positive right to make copies, because it was part of a censorship regime in which proliferation of unsanctioned knowledge was forbidden.
The term "asshat" originated from the two root words, ass, which refers to a donkey, and hat, an ornamental head wear. Therefore, to call someone an "asshat" means they are a hat-wearing donkey. When the king hears of your blaspheme, it'll be off with your head.
Sweat of the brow arguments are legally invalid in regards to copyright law, per Feist v. Rural
Amazing. First "the law can be wrong, and often is", so I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find your rhetoric including an argument about the legitimacy of the law. Perhaps it's only certain laws we should follow. You know, like a law buffet. Just put on your plate what looks tasty and ignore the rest.
And ethically, sharing information is generally a good thing, with only a few exceptions. I do no oppose supporting the arts, and I likely have done more towards that end than you have.
Well, as I have done more than just "support" the arts, but actually been the starving artist, I do oppose the arts... unless of course you're going into them either because you're gay, or really really want to piss off your parents. Otherwise, get a real job -- there's no money in art. Okay, maybe I don't oppose it per-se, but let's just say don't quit your day job, mmm?
And as for sharing information; I suppose now's a bad time to point out that information comes in more than two varieties (one and zero)... and amazingly, different kinds of information has different value. You can't abstract so far away from what it represents to say it's just "information"... This is a false equivocation in the extreme.
ou've also thrown out the term 'freeloading,' yet another sign of an incompetent copyright propone
The editors should have linked to it in the summary. They should fix the oversight and link to it now.
The editors are now owned an operated by a corporation. As a corporation they can be sued. As they can be sued, they aren't going to partake of legal action that might jeopardize their profits. This isn't like Digg or a dozen other sites that, upon hearing from their users they had caved to political pressure mounted a massive PR campaign.
The slashdot of years past no longer exists. It won't take the chance anymore. In other news, what I really want to know is why torrent sites aren't going to .onion domains ... which can't be taken down by any government order. As a 'hidden service', they're just a new tor circuit connection away from restarting... no DNS, no jurisdictional issues... not much chance of finding out even where they really are. And the .torrent files and magnet links don't take up much bandwidth, unlike the P2P transfers, which don't involve the site anyway...
I really don't get why they're sticking with blockable technologies... maybe they're just stubborn or trying to prove a point.
This in itself is a good thing, to prevent older exploited code form communication, and to make sure clients are using the same basic resources and interfaces to any underlying APIs.
Yeah, because we all know there's big money to be made in hackers exploiting buffer overflows in a scrabble client. Besides, 'powned' is only worth 12 points. I'm not writing an exploit for 12 stupid points.
Tell you what; you get anyone to mod you up, and I'll bother replying with a detailed summary of exactly how wrong you are.
For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country. We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism." We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators. We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them. That same year, the government continued to trumpet that a 98 year old man, on his deathbed, recanted and said that the Rosenbergs were spies... but the press quietly buried what he said right after: That the principle charge against them, the reason they were executed -- passing secrets about how to build the atom bomb, they were innocent of. They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.
So I'm not sure your claim that the USSR and the USA were significantly different in their propaganda campaigns... In fact, I would argue they were more or less the same, both in substance and quantity. But I'd be happy to entertain any significant act that you feel the USSR undertook that didn't have a parallel from the USA.
A couple weeks ago, I walked by a Microsoft store. First time I'd seen one. It looked nice and peaceful, a respite from the crowds of shoppers outside.
Yeah, I walked into one, once. The salesman immediately tried to get me to dance in front of a Kinect. The results gathered more of a crowd than the Kinect ever could. I'm not sure what this says more about... that white girls can't dance, or that Kinects just aren't that interesting.
Even traffic on hotspots with a PSK are vulnerable as long as the attacker can get to the key.
I think you're underestimating your opponent!
~#: reaver -i mon0 -vv -b 'ImInUrWifi' > results.txt &
~# logoff
Now go to bed. When you come back, you'll have not just the PSK, but any PSK that router changes to in the future.
As I've pointed out before in this thread... It was a typo. Funny thing is, 'd' and 'x' are right next to each other on the keyboard, and vt-d is different than vt-x. But whatever... why read comments elsewhere in the thread?
Bullshit. Even ESX/ESXi can work just fine without VT-d. The only thing you lose is I/O pass-through. Cut out the hyperbole. The fact that you can explicitly disable VT-d in VMWare's settings disproves your ridiculous claims.
VMWare just called: Something about you being wrong. I did make a typo confusing VT-d with VT-x, but the point is that these features being disabled will make those CPUs less desireable for virtualization, if not outright impossible. Which is what Intel is aiming for; Market segmentation means you can charge more for certain features... and virtualization has become all the rage in data centers, so why not have them pay through the nose... and just burn a few fuses out for the unwashed masses and charge a lot less to them?
Nevermind that some of those "unwashed masses" are professionals who want to work on this technology outside of work... or are enthusiasts. If they don't have the cash, fuck 'em, right?
In my experiences, they have always outperformed Intel's processors, and generally cost half as much.
That hasn't been the case for several generations of processor design, unfortunately. The top end of the AMD processor line can't compete with Intel on performance. That's why they've gotten so cheap -- so OEMs build systems on them. The 'Intel Tax' puts a lot of their mid-range and above stuff out of reach of the average consumer, and generally you're only finding them in laptops now because of the superior power usage and thermals...
If you want per-unit performance today, you buy Intel. If you want commodity, you buy AMD.
Life's too short- skip the anxiety and run your processor at it's rated speed.
With liquid cooling, your processor can run significantly above its rated speed because most failures are based on thermal overload. The core in your "slower" processor is the same as a "faster" one, but it failed qualification at some point, and it's not due to a physical defect per-se but because thermal tolerances are so tight that there may be a circuit cluster that becomes unstable due to parasitics; Usually it's highly localized heating. Liquid cooling can bring not just that component, but all the others, into a better thermal profile, leading to increased stability at all clock rates over air cooling.
The setup costs for liquid cooling are high, but it is an investment that can last a decade or more, as the only moving component is the pump. Electricity costs for a typical single or dual cpu design is quite low. When you consider the total cost of ownership for your system, the higher performance from overclocking versus buying a cpu rated for the same but air cooled can make it a sound investment.
Of course, many enthusiasts neglect to install such new equipment; the same enthusiasts who don't buy a UPS after blowing $4 grand on their rig... but that's a personal problem, not a technological one. If you are such an enthusiast and have had a bad experience with overclocking, it is no surprise. It is not something you can just go into the BIOS, make a few settings, and be done -- there are tests to be done, often fans to be upgraded at the least, case design becomes a major consideration, etc. In fact, many integrated systems ship with a heat sink that is not properly mounted... to save a few extra cents knowing that it'll take a few years for that CPU to burn out and by then you'll want another system anyway.
You really need to know what you're doing, but... if you do, there is a financial and performance payoff that makes it worthwhile.
Go look up the spec sheets for Sandy CPUs. Or better yet Google 3570K and VT-d. Surprise!
Sorry, my bad. I confused VT-d with VT-x. Yes, you're correct -- it won't run an ESX server, but I use Workstation, so it's been fine for me. That sucks though -- I know a lot of people who build dedicated lab machines on a rack; I don't have the funds to lay out on something that complex, nor the space where I live right now, but I can see how that would screw you over... especially when VMWare's hardware requirements white sheet doesn't specifically list it either. :(
This kind of cpu fragmentation I think is an attempt to create new markets where they can charge more, and it's frustrating because there's no technological reason for it. Where's government regulation when you really need it?
Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that.
Well, there's the problem with trends. Assuming they go on forever means that, for example, everyone should now have about 52 model-Ts in their garage. That said... the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.
The question isn't whether the planet can support that number, but what kind of life will be possible in that future. We may wind up breeding ourselves into anarchy as all but the richest of us struggle to keep enough food on our plates and death by starvation will be the number one cause of death worldwide. I'm not sure what kind of society or civilization will be possible in that world... it may be that humanity simply can't advance beyond a certain point because we wind up spreading like a virus, consuming all resources until none are left and then dying off, like any other invasive species.
The sad part is... despite our own self-awareness and consciousness, it will have proven we can't outgrow our animalistic nature and so, at least in evolutionary terms, humanity is a dead end. Something else will have to evolve out of the situation before we can progress beyond it.
This can of worms has been opened awhile, you've obviously not tried to build a K based machine running virtualization. See my post below...
Got one right now, actually; It's a i5-3570K. To the best of my knowledge, no features are disabled compared to other models based on this core. But vmware needs VT-d to function, and if they kill this feature off, it won't work. So, no, it hasn't been opened for "awhile", this is something that's started rolling out in the last year.
The K-series parts lack the support for transactional memory extensions and VT-d device virtualization
Yeah, well, fun fact... a lot of enthusiasts like myself like things like VMWare, which depend on this kind of thing. Deleting those features from the unlocked line means I just won't buy them... one of the big drivers for overclocking is to run virtualization. You might think it's "just gamers" doing this, but a lot of us do network and system administration and deployment and like the ability of having a "lab in a box" offered by current processors. You take that away and you're going to find your bottom line hurting, possibly more than a little.
I don't know which of your marketing assclowns came up with this idea as a revenue generating measure, but it's going to backfire in their face and I hope when it does you fire their ass, apologize, and never try this again. You're only succeeding in driving us towards commodity hardware like AMDs offerings... All they need to capitalize on the market you've just shit on now is offer mainboards with multiple sockets for their CPUs and make the mainboards cheap and the core system very energy efficient... and not only will the enthusiasts ditch you, but so will the data centers...
You're opening a can of worms here. Bad plan, darlings.
They do cave in when they think their jobs are on the line..
But they aren't. Everyone in every national-level election for the past twenty years has had their campaign paid for by the same people, often these same people (and groups) sponsored both candidates. And when they leave Congress, they'll have a job waiting for them with one of those groups... on one condition: They don't listen to you or your concerns.
The most we get anymore now from public outrage is this -- open letters that basically say "Nothing is wrong and we're working to fix it as quickly as possible!"