In short, a rich company hoping to scare off litigation by advertising a team of expensive lawyers or an extended litigation period would not be able to as those lawyers would recognise that they would only be able to share in a limited, small pot of cash.
While I am not an expert in the US legal system it seems like having the loser pay the legal bills might reduce some of this predatory litigation.
The question is, how much influence does the US electorate have over this kind of decision? People who rely on winning through bankruptcy are also the people who have the kind of money to lobby to maintain the current system.
A researcher has previously investigated controller-avatar interactions, specifically, if the player (this is video-games related) identifies with their avatar:
"Players do not automatically take on the role of characters/avatars. Playing as a character that is ostensibly “other” to you (in terms of gender, race, or sexuality) is not necessarily transgressive or perspective-altering. Playing as a character that is like you (in terms of demographic categories) does not necessarily engender identification." "This calls into question both the educative benefits and the marketing benefits of playing as a main video game character that is a member of a marginalized group."
Limitations: Note that the sample for this paper did not involve what the researcher describes as "White male gamer", the researcher draws conclusions from a small sample. Also note that the paper does not seem to be peer reviewed.
It's not *proof* of anything but it may suggest that VR interactions, like games, do not guarantee any identification between the subject and their avatar. In fact, it may be counter-productive; those who are asked to take part in the intervention/training may ask why it is that they're assumed to be racist.
While I am really only dipping my toe into R I decided to do some research on this question a while back.
I have used python for a number of scientific applications and was attempting to determine if I should use Rpy2 (http://rpy2.bitbucket.org/). It initially made sense to keep all of the data retrieval, formatting and analysis in a few python scripts. However, it seems that the design of the R language intrinsically accounts for the problem solving methodology: "R is designed to operate the way that problems are thought about." (http://www.burns-stat.com/documents/tutorials/why-use-the-r-language/)
I'll hand myself in as one of those disgusting monsters who tries to form an evidence-based opinion.
I'm trying my best to paint anyone who criticises an opinion given by a back person as a racist, a woman as misogynist or a trans person as... anti-trans? I... I just need to learn to start treating people I don't know as victims who can't survive without my help, especially those who don't want it.
In the same way we should stop calling terrorists "terrorists" and start calling them morons, we need to stop calling people virgins and start calling them sexually inept.
"In today's news, two morons blew themselves up for the promise of 72 sexually inept women."
Much of the spam I see is Paypal and Facebook. Shouldn't spam filters be image matching logos or looking for company names in an email and verifying the email came from a domain associated with that company?
From what I've saw of them this may be true of some people flying the GamerGate flag but there are people who are vociferously ethics only who don't like all of the identity politics crosstalk.
This is perhaps informative (unless one believes that the majority of the respondents are being disingenuous) http://gamepolitics.com/2015/0...
"I asked my first question, “What is GamerGate?” because that will be asked at the upcoming SPJ AirPlay discussion on August 15 and I wanted to compare answers."
"Their top-voted response explained, “GamerGate is a movement dedicated to fighting for ethics in (gaming) journalism and against censorship and the politicization of (gaming) media and games. It arose after several corruption scandals in the gaming media, attacks on the gamer identity and attempts by the gaming media and ‘cultural critics’ to force a political ideology down the throats of gamers.”"
I guess that there is a chance that a much larger group of people (including international Gamergaters?) that agree with your analysis missed Brad Glasgow's questions but assuming this isn't the case the group consensus seems to be focused on ethics.
Ultimately I accept that people are drawn to the group for different reasons but I think it's reasonable, if one is going to generalise, to look at the majority opinion and use it as a basis of describing the group.
Archive link for those who prefer not to support the reprehensible Gawker: https://archive.is/PP7q2
IMHO Gawker is an absolutely vile clickbait machine that portrays itself as a progressive voice while selling outrage. It undermines what I consider valid, socially responsible goals by trivialising most of them, generating needless conflict by labelling "bad" people and maintaining a ludicrous left-wing good, right-wing evil narrative. It produces propaganda and hatred for cash.
The problem with journalism is not that one needs an audience, the problem with journalism is that factual reporting is no longer the main goal. Truth is secondary to page-views. Nolan suggests that people are the problem because they won't pay for factual material, http://www.private-eye.co.uk/ demonstrates that one can successfully run a publication that focuses on the pursuit and publication of truth (with a healthy injection of humour).
TFA is an attempt to blame absolutely shitty "journalism" on the audience, what in fact is happening is that those of us who do care about quality journalism recognise Gawker for what it is and don't give it ad-revenue or page-impressions.
To quote Vader: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" (It wasn't a serious question but I realise a joke doesn't always work well in text.)
Somewhat related: I have seen the Phantom Editor and Anti-cheese versions of the prequels. I thought the former did a decent job of tightening up the films without major changes. The Anti-cheese version dubbed over the Trade Federation aliens and Jar-Jar with non-human voices, their dialogue was subtitled. The result was a really simple and quite effective way of making them more alien.
Given that they now own Starwars I'm wondering if it is possible for Disney to rework the prequels.
Given the soul that Pixar can put into a 100% CGI movie with close to no dialogue (Wall-E) I'm sure the Special Edition of the prequels could be injected with some.
They could retcon Darth Jar-Jar! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yy3q9f84EA);)
Ok, I think this has become unproductive. I provided a link to a video that pre-dates the creation of the hash-tag demonstrating unequivocally that the original claim was favourable coverage and your reply is an anecdote that this isn't what you experienced. If I can present that and you can dismiss it it is clear that your criteria for what constitutes evidence is different from mine and nothing I present, regardless of how definitive, will sway you.
I did not ignore your point about the Quinnspiracy, I just don't want to invest time into discussing this with you if you're not going to provide some documentation to back your claims. I am open to whatever evidence you can provide.
If you wish to continue please provide links to material that in some way supports your claims.
I absolutely appreciate that you're willing to take the time to chat to me about this but until you can present *something* that validates your claims I don't see this going anywhere. I would also say, purely as a point of argumentation style, that insulting people needlessly isn't a great way to make your points any more convincing.
I had a look at your posting history and noticed that the person you referred to earlier who was making claims of a favourable review presented the same evidence I linked in my original post in this thread (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8183157&cid=50752585). The odd thing is that this individual made a really inconsistent post that talks about a review then asserts it was favourable coverage while presenting evidence that *it was* favourable coverage and not a review. I would say that this is not my experience when talking to "gater troll"s as I described above.
You discounted the idea that the three instances of coverage were not reviews making the evidence, in your opinion, entirely worthless. It took me a few minutes to invalidate your claim that the original assertion by "Gamergate" was that Grayson gave Quinn reviews for sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (for those who lack context, this is a mirrored copy of the video that Adam Baldwin linked to when coining the term Gamergate)
If you can get something so straightforward as this wrong is it not possible that you are the person with an axe to grind?
Ethical behaviour is verifying the veracity of the claims rather than discounting them out of hand due to one's biases and when making counter claims backing them up with evidence.
I've had a decent number of conversations with persons I'm guessing you would describe as a "gater troll" as well as anti-Gamergate people. A small number of the former were raving loons who jumped on any conspiracy theory and used it to validate their own biases and prejudices, most however were thoughtful (if irreverent), disillusioned with the media and angry at being branded sexist/right-wing. One thing they were willing to do that anti-Gamergate people were largely unwilling or unable to do is to barrage me with evidence validating their claims (admittedly some were fairly weak, IMHO). anti-Gamergate people have largely pointed me to newspapers and blogs that uncritically present the claims of people saying that "Gamergate" targeted them, usually as part of a scaremongering, victimisation narrative about how dangerous a place the internet is, particularly for women. Reports often include comments about the police having been contacted and that an investigation being under-way. What happened to the standards of innocent until proven guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt? I appreciate that the persons who harassed Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian might never be caught but is it reasonable to assert that one *knows* that "Gamergate" is responsible based on hear-say and conjecture?
A trend I find alarming is that simply asking for evidence results in claims that one is a misogynist or a Gamergate supporter. The very act of attempting to talk to a "gater troll" is that one is branded a "gater troll".
If the evidence is robust it should speak for itself. If instead all one can present is evidence-free assertions, ludicrously slanted opinion pieces, guilt by association finger pointing and goalpost shifting rhetoric then I'm afraid it is entirely unsurprising that a sceptical person would not be convinced of the robustness of claims made.
""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...
Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.
Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on/.
One should never trust a newspaper's coverage of science. Some journalists don't care about the quality of studies and will often erroneously or intentionally oversimplify (or misrepresent) the implications of a study to suit a narrative they're invested in.
There's an additional problem that comes as a consequence of this: wikipedia editors routinely categorise publications that align with their politics and ideology as reliable sources while discounting those who do not as unreliable. The result, particularly in "hot" topics is that you get a non-expert, politicised view of the science rather than a link to the study.
And whilst you would dismiss the content of the 80% of comments you observe here as trolling the only thing that differentiates them from persons who self-identify as social justice warrior (or bard, wizard, etc. (I'm not kidding)) is that the latter claim to be acting in a meritorious way which allows them to validate their bad behaviour.
Incorrect. That study (I'd need to see citations for the "others like it") shows that only the studies it investigated are probably incorrect as the results were not reproducible. It cannot make any predictive claims on the future of any given field and thus stating that "science" continues to be incorrect is a generalisation that you cannot possibly support by evidence. The fact that we know how and why the sun "rises" despite many erroneous theories is enough to discard your claim. A hypothesis was made and tested, conclusions were reached, eventually the conclusions were reached independently by a range of persons through the same process.
The scientific process is not limited to one or a few studies. At any time conclusions can be refuted and they often are because scientists are a competitive bunch. Finding a better explanatory model of any phenomena results in prestige. At no point does magic come in to it.
The scientific process is not the only method we use. We've listened to holy people who made authoritative statements based on revealed truth, people have simply decided intuitively why things are the way they are. Said truths don't tend to stand up to any scrutiny.
I'm sure everyone would benefit from your suggestions of better alternatives to the scientific method.
It should never be assumed that any single source of information is authoratative, moreover it should probably be assumed that information coming from a limited number of people may include the biases of that person or group.
The current peer review process is an attempt to remove as much of the subjectivity from the findings as possible by introducing independent reviewers. Does it work? Somewhat.
Peer review has its own problems; I once turned down a request to review a study because it contained material I simply did not have expertise in. I voiced my concerns to the editor of the journal who assured me that this was not a problem.
I know of one example of a reviewer trying to inject their own research into a study where it was tenuously relevent. The amount of work required to add this material was not trivial.
Ultimately, people are still involved in science. However, science is self-correcting: Can't reproduce a result? Results and conclusions are then considered poorly founded. Researcher found to have ulterior motives? Their entire past work and any future work will be subjected to greater scrutiny. Don't ever underestimate how invested people get in their own pet theories either.
The scientific process is not perfect but it's the best solution we currently have to removing the people problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Japanese pilots have demonstrated the ability to fly more than one craft simultaneously while defeating overwhelming odds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Upcoming headlines:
"UN Council: I just, like, can't even, China!"
"UN Council: Russia, you're being totally problematic. Not cool!"
In which we recognise the benefit of the bill to society is inversely proportional to how beneficial the name of the bill suggests it is.
# This will be useful some time in the future.
import morse
def create_password(super_secret_string):
shit_fuck_me = morse.string_to_morse(super_secret_string)
temp = ""
for item in shit_fuck_me:
a = item.replace(".", "SHIT").replace("-", "FUCK")
temp = temp + a
print("Your super secret password is: {0}".format(temp))
if __name__ == "__main__":
create_password("password1")
This is why a cap can be placed on recoverable fees and has in many parts of the world.
http://www.policyarchive.org/h...
In short, a rich company hoping to scare off litigation by advertising a team of expensive lawyers or an extended litigation period would not be able to as those lawyers would recognise that they would only be able to share in a limited, small pot of cash.
While I am not an expert in the US legal system it seems like having the loser pay the legal bills might reduce some of this predatory litigation.
The question is, how much influence does the US electorate have over this kind of decision? People who rely on winning through bankruptcy are also the people who have the kind of money to lobby to maintain the current system.
A researcher has previously investigated controller-avatar interactions, specifically, if the player (this is video-games related) identifies with their avatar:
"Players do not automatically take on the role of characters/avatars. Playing as a character that is ostensibly “other” to you (in terms of gender, race, or sexuality) is not necessarily transgressive or perspective-altering. Playing as a character that is like you (in terms of demographic categories) does not necessarily engender identification."
"This calls into question both the educative benefits and the marketing benefits of playing as a main video game character that is a member of a marginalized group."
Limitations: Note that the sample for this paper did not involve what the researcher describes as "White male gamer", the researcher draws conclusions from a small sample. Also note that the paper does not seem to be peer reviewed.
Source: http://www.digra.org/wp-conten...
It's not *proof* of anything but it may suggest that VR interactions, like games, do not guarantee any identification between the subject and their avatar. In fact, it may be counter-productive; those who are asked to take part in the intervention/training may ask why it is that they're assumed to be racist.
While I am really only dipping my toe into R I decided to do some research on this question a while back.
I have used python for a number of scientific applications and was attempting to determine if I should use Rpy2 (http://rpy2.bitbucket.org/). It initially made sense to keep all of the data retrieval, formatting and analysis in a few python scripts. However, it seems that the design of the R language intrinsically accounts for the problem solving methodology: "R is designed to operate the way that problems are thought about." (http://www.burns-stat.com/documents/tutorials/why-use-the-r-language/)
I'll hand myself in as one of those disgusting monsters who tries to form an evidence-based opinion.
I'm trying my best to paint anyone who criticises an opinion given by a back person as a racist, a woman as misogynist or a trans person as... anti-trans?
I... I just need to learn to start treating people I don't know as victims who can't survive without my help, especially those who don't want it.
Twitter Launches Church Of We Don't Like Your Opinion So We're Going To Brand You A Troll Council to Help Put End To Hurt Feelings
In the same way we should stop calling terrorists "terrorists" and start calling them morons, we need to stop calling people virgins and start calling them sexually inept.
"In today's news, two morons blew themselves up for the promise of 72 sexually inept women."
Take all of the glory out of it.
Much of the spam I see is Paypal and Facebook. Shouldn't spam filters be image matching logos or looking for company names in an email and verifying the email came from a domain associated with that company?
From what I've saw of them this may be true of some people flying the GamerGate flag but there are people who are vociferously ethics only who don't like all of the identity politics crosstalk.
This is perhaps informative (unless one believes that the majority of the respondents are being disingenuous) http://gamepolitics.com/2015/0...
"I asked my first question, “What is GamerGate?” because that will be asked at the upcoming SPJ AirPlay discussion on August 15 and I wanted to compare answers."
"Their top-voted response explained, “GamerGate is a movement dedicated to fighting for ethics in (gaming) journalism and against censorship and the politicization of (gaming) media and games. It arose after several corruption scandals in the gaming media, attacks on the gamer identity and attempts by the gaming media and ‘cultural critics’ to force a political ideology down the throats of gamers.”"
I guess that there is a chance that a much larger group of people (including international Gamergaters?) that agree with your analysis missed Brad Glasgow's questions but assuming this isn't the case the group consensus seems to be focused on ethics.
Ultimately I accept that people are drawn to the group for different reasons but I think it's reasonable, if one is going to generalise, to look at the majority opinion and use it as a basis of describing the group.
Archive link for those who prefer not to support the reprehensible Gawker: https://archive.is/PP7q2
IMHO Gawker is an absolutely vile clickbait machine that portrays itself as a progressive voice while selling outrage.
It undermines what I consider valid, socially responsible goals by trivialising most of them, generating needless conflict by labelling "bad" people and maintaining a ludicrous left-wing good, right-wing evil narrative. It produces propaganda and hatred for cash.
Nick Denton - the CEO of Gawker - has admitted that the company has a severe empathy problem and tried to relaunch it:
http://www.thewrap.com/nick-de...
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/2...
The problem with journalism is not that one needs an audience, the problem with journalism is that factual reporting is no longer the main goal. Truth is secondary to page-views. Nolan suggests that people are the problem because they won't pay for factual material, http://www.private-eye.co.uk/ demonstrates that one can successfully run a publication that focuses on the pursuit and publication of truth (with a healthy injection of humour).
TFA is an attempt to blame absolutely shitty "journalism" on the audience, what in fact is happening is that those of us who do care about quality journalism recognise Gawker for what it is and don't give it ad-revenue or page-impressions.
To quote Vader: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" (It wasn't a serious question but I realise a joke doesn't always work well in text.)
Somewhat related: I have seen the Phantom Editor and Anti-cheese versions of the prequels. I thought the former did a decent job of tightening up the films without major changes. The Anti-cheese version dubbed over the Trade Federation aliens and Jar-Jar with non-human voices, their dialogue was subtitled. The result was a really simple and quite effective way of making them more alien.
Given that they now own Starwars I'm wondering if it is possible for Disney to rework the prequels.
Given the soul that Pixar can put into a 100% CGI movie with close to no dialogue (Wall-E) I'm sure the Special Edition of the prequels could be injected with some.
They could retcon Darth Jar-Jar! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yy3q9f84EA) ;)
Ok, I think this has become unproductive. I provided a link to a video that pre-dates the creation of the hash-tag demonstrating unequivocally that the original claim was favourable coverage and your reply is an anecdote that this isn't what you experienced. If I can present that and you can dismiss it it is clear that your criteria for what constitutes evidence is different from mine and nothing I present, regardless of how definitive, will sway you.
I did not ignore your point about the Quinnspiracy, I just don't want to invest time into discussing this with you if you're not going to provide some documentation to back your claims. I am open to whatever evidence you can provide.
If you wish to continue please provide links to material that in some way supports your claims.
I absolutely appreciate that you're willing to take the time to chat to me about this but until you can present *something* that validates your claims I don't see this going anywhere. I would also say, purely as a point of argumentation style, that insulting people needlessly isn't a great way to make your points any more convincing.
I had a look at your posting history and noticed that the person you referred to earlier who was making claims of a favourable review presented the same evidence I linked in my original post in this thread (http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8183157&cid=50752585). The odd thing is that this individual made a really inconsistent post that talks about a review then asserts it was favourable coverage while presenting evidence that *it was* favourable coverage and not a review. I would say that this is not my experience when talking to "gater troll"s as I described above.
You discounted the idea that the three instances of coverage were not reviews making the evidence, in your opinion, entirely worthless. It took me a few minutes to invalidate your claim that the original assertion by "Gamergate" was that Grayson gave Quinn reviews for sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (for those who lack context, this is a mirrored copy of the video that Adam Baldwin linked to when coining the term Gamergate)
If you can get something so straightforward as this wrong is it not possible that you are the person with an axe to grind?
Ethical behaviour is verifying the veracity of the claims rather than discounting them out of hand due to one's biases and when making counter claims backing them up with evidence.
I've had a decent number of conversations with persons I'm guessing you would describe as a "gater troll" as well as anti-Gamergate people. A small number of the former were raving loons who jumped on any conspiracy theory and used it to validate their own biases and prejudices, most however were thoughtful (if irreverent), disillusioned with the media and angry at being branded sexist/right-wing. One thing they were willing to do that anti-Gamergate people were largely unwilling or unable to do is to barrage me with evidence validating their claims (admittedly some were fairly weak, IMHO). anti-Gamergate people have largely pointed me to newspapers and blogs that uncritically present the claims of people saying that "Gamergate" targeted them, usually as part of a scaremongering, victimisation narrative about how dangerous a place the internet is, particularly for women. Reports often include comments about the police having been contacted and that an investigation being under-way. What happened to the standards of innocent until proven guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt? I appreciate that the persons who harassed Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian might never be caught but is it reasonable to assert that one *knows* that "Gamergate" is responsible based on hear-say and conjecture?
A trend I find alarming is that simply asking for evidence results in claims that one is a misogynist or a Gamergate supporter. The very act of attempting to talk to a "gater troll" is that one is branded a "gater troll".
If the evidence is robust it should speak for itself. If instead all one can present is evidence-free assertions, ludicrously slanted opinion pieces, guilt by association finger pointing and goalpost shifting rhetoric then I'm afraid it is entirely unsurprising that a sceptical person would not be convinced of the robustness of claims made.
GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc
https://archive.is/mrVxK
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...
""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...
Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.
Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.
One should never trust a newspaper's coverage of science. Some journalists don't care about the quality of studies and will often erroneously or intentionally oversimplify (or misrepresent) the implications of a study to suit a narrative they're invested in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's an additional problem that comes as a consequence of this: wikipedia editors routinely categorise publications that align with their politics and ideology as reliable sources while discounting those who do not as unreliable. The result, particularly in "hot" topics is that you get a non-expert, politicised view of the science rather than a link to the study.
And whilst you would dismiss the content of the 80% of comments you observe here as trolling the only thing that differentiates them from persons who self-identify as social justice warrior (or bard, wizard, etc. (I'm not kidding)) is that the latter claim to be acting in a meritorious way which allows them to validate their bad behaviour.
A few weeks ago I posted this: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Usually it's nice to have an(other) example to illustrate a point.
In this case, not so much.
Incorrect. That study (I'd need to see citations for the "others like it") shows that only the studies it investigated are probably incorrect as the results were not reproducible. It cannot make any predictive claims on the future of any given field and thus stating that "science" continues to be incorrect is a generalisation that you cannot possibly support by evidence. The fact that we know how and why the sun "rises" despite many erroneous theories is enough to discard your claim. A hypothesis was made and tested, conclusions were reached, eventually the conclusions were reached independently by a range of persons through the same process.
The scientific process is not limited to one or a few studies. At any time conclusions can be refuted and they often are because scientists are a competitive bunch. Finding a better explanatory model of any phenomena results in prestige. At no point does magic come in to it.
The scientific process is not the only method we use. We've listened to holy people who made authoritative statements based on revealed truth, people have simply decided intuitively why things are the way they are. Said truths don't tend to stand up to any scrutiny.
I'm sure everyone would benefit from your suggestions of better alternatives to the scientific method.
It should never be assumed that any single source of information is authoratative, moreover it should probably be assumed that information coming from a limited number of people may include the biases of that person or group.
The current peer review process is an attempt to remove as much of the subjectivity from the findings as possible by introducing independent reviewers. Does it work? Somewhat.
Peer review has its own problems; I once turned down a request to review a study because it contained material I simply did not have expertise in. I voiced my concerns to the editor of the journal who assured me that this was not a problem.
I know of one example of a reviewer trying to inject their own research into a study where it was tenuously relevent. The amount of work required to add this material was not trivial.
Ultimately, people are still involved in science. However, science is self-correcting: Can't reproduce a result? Results and conclusions are then considered poorly founded. Researcher found to have ulterior motives? Their entire past work and any future work will be subjected to greater scrutiny. Don't ever underestimate how invested people get in their own pet theories either.
The scientific process is not perfect but it's the best solution we currently have to removing the people problem.