That makes for a nice strawman, but if I go looking for temperature data here in Canada most of the country doesn't have records predating 1978-79, because there was no one taking measurements. That's considered to be "all time historical temperature, water, and wind" I'm older then the non-existent records we have here.
So you're saying that policy makes don't listen to public moaning? I'm guessing you're new to politics then. Would you like a basic introductory course to hot topic issues?
You mean average people protesting nuclear plants, research reactors, throwing nimbyism all over the place, which led to the shudder-cocking of nuclear development for 25 years? Well I guess that's the nuclear and fossil power industry then.
There's as much fact in there as there was 70 years ago when people said artificial hearts would never happen, transplants would never work, and building a building over 80 stories would cause it to collapse.
So really the only person that seems to know shit about anything is you.
You must be pretty young, or skipped history class. You missed the moaning and whining after 3 mile I take it. Hitting up your local libraries newspaper archives would help.
True, but then again I live about 60mi from one of the largest nuclear generating stations in the world. The amount of worry I have over it? Pretty much zero. Most people around here also have zero worry, hell the biggest problem most people are concerned about has to do with the mega dump they want to put at the old caramuse lime pits.
If for some reason bruce nuclear goes tits up, there are going to be a lot of other things to worry about. Especially in terms of food production, especially since we export most of our harvest crops in SW-Ontario to either Europe or the US.
Mashiki, this is getting old now. Like clockwork, you make your second standard mistake: assuming that women are not interested in tech.
Care to explain why in the past more women went into technology than do now? Or why these courses are generally quite successful at attracting girls to study them?
Well, except I didn't make a mistake. I'm going off the actual employment records that happily list exactly what fields that women are drawn to, it's not tech. It's the humanities and psychology areas.
Oh, and someone else already gave you the reason why. Of course, in my own case at Waterloo, we had about 70 women in the applied mathematics course, by the end of the year there was one. The rest had left and went into...did you guess humanities, history, or psychology related areas. So, sure they're successful at attracting, terrible at retaining because they discover it's not something they'll enjoy.
Shocking. Women don't seem to like particular jobs and find something they do like. Then again, I'm sure you'll be leading the charge to get women working as oil field drill monkeys right? The shitty, well paying job that it is.
Well that's great, since the opportunity already exists right? Never mind that those barriers in said oil field workers don't actually exist, much like they don't in tech. They're jobs that don't draw existing groups because said groups have no desire to go into that field. You seem to be repeatedly making the same mistake in believing that if you throw money at something, while claiming 'we want diversity' at the cost of quality isn't a recipe for failure.
We'll just shoehorn people into fields they may not want to follow. Up next: We'll see IBM and the government fixing the dangerous jobs industries like mining and commercial fishing, while ensuring men don't have problems being called pedophiles for becoming k-12 teachers. And while we're at it, we'll ensure that there are more males entering psychology related fields. Should work out well, since women now make up the majority of the student body in universities.
I can't wait to see women enjoying a long day in the oil patch while men go off to become teachers with no issues.
The US is one of the worst societies in human history for its political class to say "let's see how far we can push the public."
Holy fucking hyperbole. Apparently someone skipped medieval European history in school, also skipped history of China and SE-Asia while they were at it.
You mean anyone could vote if they paid $40. And boy oh boy does that post come off like a damage control shill post. 1 comment and this is it, and it only had to be posted 3 times while claiming to log in.
This is not an attempt to reform or destroy stuff, it's just a massive attempt at shameless self promotion and getting their stuff awarded. Any claims to the contrary are simlpy them making stuff up to rewrite history in otder to make themselves look better, something Vox Dei does a lot.
If that was true, then the SF clique wouldn't have voted no award in only specific categories. That rather disproves your point, Hoyt figured it out. Steven King figured it out, GRR Martin figured it out.
Anyway as a result, the Hugos are part way to adopting a new voting system which penalises identical voters in order to make it harder to utterly stack the votes.
And thus both sad and rabid puppies proved their point that a clique was there, and forming voting blocks for the stuff they wanted to win awards. Which detracts from the actual point of having awards for good writing.
That perfectly describes a bunch older white males who pine for the Golden Age when they thought they ruled the world, when women stayed at home and had babies rather than winning Hugos - bunch of white male elitists had a bad case of homophobia.
As for the numbers, well they really do have something to say about how a bunch of whiny old 5th tier male writers tried to influence an popularity contest by insulting and trying to bully the very people they needed to vote for them. And, not so amazingly, they created an EPIC FAIL.
Strange. I guess all those female nominees who were no longer the 'right kind of person' that said CHORFs decided to vote against with no award were white male elitists. Then again, when did it become bad to be male, white or elitist?
The numbers sure do, that the SF clique couldn't stand anyone else other than those they wanted to win the awards. And voted 'no award.' If authors like Steven King and GRR.M could figure it out, I'm sure you shouldn't have a problem.
io9 huh? Well Gawker's sites do believe that no ethics is good ethics, so let's get on with it. Article written by Charlie Anders, who has a direct interest in the hugo awards and directly written for tor.com, no conflicts of interest there right?
Wired doesn't have it right. In fact, it has a bias so deep and disgusting that anyone who reads it should hang their head in shame. After all, what type of legitimate publication writes a sentence like this:
Look at the number data and compare it to the SF voting block. I'll wait, and when you suddenly see that the SF voting block is exactly the same as the 'no award' I'm sure you can explain it. The numbers themselves tell the story that CHORF's got really upset that someone was trying to show that there was a massive voting block, and happily proved it for them.
Sad Puppies believes that the Hugo's can be reformed. Rabid Puppies believes the entire thing should be burned and started oer from scratch. In the end, they were proven right that the Hugo's are being vote blocked and that it needs to be fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
That makes for a nice strawman, but if I go looking for temperature data here in Canada most of the country doesn't have records predating 1978-79, because there was no one taking measurements. That's considered to be "all time historical temperature, water, and wind" I'm older then the non-existent records we have here.
So you are going to stop calling it Obamacare?
Why do that? People are happy to play partisan politics with stuff, in this case he made it, he owns it.
So you're saying that policy makes don't listen to public moaning? I'm guessing you're new to politics then. Would you like a basic introductory course to hot topic issues?
You mean average people protesting nuclear plants, research reactors, throwing nimbyism all over the place, which led to the shudder-cocking of nuclear development for 25 years? Well I guess that's the nuclear and fossil power industry then.
There's as much fact in there as there was 70 years ago when people said artificial hearts would never happen, transplants would never work, and building a building over 80 stories would cause it to collapse.
So really the only person that seems to know shit about anything is you.
You must be pretty young, or skipped history class. You missed the moaning and whining after 3 mile I take it. Hitting up your local libraries newspaper archives would help.
Would have been true, if not for the environmentalist anti-nuke nuts.
If you're in the US, said articles must be clearly labeled as sponsored content. It's big FTC fines if they don't label them as such.
True, but then again I live about 60mi from one of the largest nuclear generating stations in the world. The amount of worry I have over it? Pretty much zero. Most people around here also have zero worry, hell the biggest problem most people are concerned about has to do with the mega dump they want to put at the old caramuse lime pits.
If for some reason bruce nuclear goes tits up, there are going to be a lot of other things to worry about. Especially in terms of food production, especially since we export most of our harvest crops in SW-Ontario to either Europe or the US.
Mashiki, this is getting old now. Like clockwork, you make your second standard mistake: assuming that women are not interested in tech.
Care to explain why in the past more women went into technology than do now? Or why these courses are generally quite successful at attracting girls to study them?
Well, except I didn't make a mistake. I'm going off the actual employment records that happily list exactly what fields that women are drawn to, it's not tech. It's the humanities and psychology areas.
Oh, and someone else already gave you the reason why. Of course, in my own case at Waterloo, we had about 70 women in the applied mathematics course, by the end of the year there was one. The rest had left and went into...did you guess humanities, history, or psychology related areas. So, sure they're successful at attracting, terrible at retaining because they discover it's not something they'll enjoy.
Shocking. Women don't seem to like particular jobs and find something they do like. Then again, I'm sure you'll be leading the charge to get women working as oil field drill monkeys right? The shitty, well paying job that it is.
So did he get all his experience back?
Maybe, I prefer the lichdom route myself. If you're going to be undead, better to be undead and have awesome magical powers.
It's about giving everyone an opportunity.
Well that's great, since the opportunity already exists right? Never mind that those barriers in said oil field workers don't actually exist, much like they don't in tech. They're jobs that don't draw existing groups because said groups have no desire to go into that field. You seem to be repeatedly making the same mistake in believing that if you throw money at something, while claiming 'we want diversity' at the cost of quality isn't a recipe for failure.
We'll just shoehorn people into fields they may not want to follow. Up next: We'll see IBM and the government fixing the dangerous jobs industries like mining and commercial fishing, while ensuring men don't have problems being called pedophiles for becoming k-12 teachers. And while we're at it, we'll ensure that there are more males entering psychology related fields. Should work out well, since women now make up the majority of the student body in universities.
I can't wait to see women enjoying a long day in the oil patch while men go off to become teachers with no issues.
The only cliques were the puppies. the 2500 no-awards were not organized
Nope, Scalzi had his very own voting slate that the SF clique used. And he was the one running the show. And that SF clique, followed his slate.
The US is one of the worst societies in human history for its political class to say "let's see how far we can push the public."
Holy fucking hyperbole. Apparently someone skipped medieval European history in school, also skipped history of China and SE-Asia while they were at it.
You mean anyone could vote if they paid $40. And boy oh boy does that post come off like a damage control shill post. 1 comment and this is it, and it only had to be posted 3 times while claiming to log in.
This is not an attempt to reform or destroy stuff, it's just a massive attempt at shameless self promotion and getting their stuff awarded. Any claims to the contrary are simlpy them making stuff up to rewrite history in otder to make themselves look better, something Vox Dei does a lot.
If that was true, then the SF clique wouldn't have voted no award in only specific categories. That rather disproves your point, Hoyt figured it out. Steven King figured it out, GRR Martin figured it out.
Anyway as a result, the Hugos are part way to adopting a new voting system which penalises identical voters in order to make it harder to utterly stack the votes.
And thus both sad and rabid puppies proved their point that a clique was there, and forming voting blocks for the stuff they wanted to win awards. Which detracts from the actual point of having awards for good writing.
That perfectly describes a bunch older white males who pine for the Golden Age when they thought they ruled the world, when women stayed at home and had babies rather than winning Hugos - bunch of white male elitists had a bad case of homophobia.
As for the numbers, well they really do have something to say about how a bunch of whiny old 5th tier male writers tried to influence an popularity contest by insulting and trying to bully the very people they needed to vote for them. And, not so amazingly, they created an EPIC FAIL.
Strange. I guess all those female nominees who were no longer the 'right kind of person' that said CHORFs decided to vote against with no award were white male elitists. Then again, when did it become bad to be male, white or elitist?
The numbers sure do, that the SF clique couldn't stand anyone else other than those they wanted to win the awards. And voted 'no award.' If authors like Steven King and GRR.M could figure it out, I'm sure you shouldn't have a problem.
So, why did the female game developer get all the hate and threats? What guilty game journos were GG going after for this same debacle?
Ask her. After all, every time her paetron numbers started dropping she injected herself right back in, just like brianna wu.
Tauriq Moosa in his screed on polygon did for one. There were quite a few of the "witcher 3 is racist because no PoC" bullshit.
io9 huh? Well Gawker's sites do believe that no ethics is good ethics, so let's get on with it. Article written by Charlie Anders, who has a direct interest in the hugo awards and directly written for tor.com, no conflicts of interest there right?
Wired doesn't have it right. In fact, it has a bias so deep and disgusting that anyone who reads it should hang their head in shame. After all, what type of legitimate publication writes a sentence like this:
GamerGate makes a political movement out of threatening with rape any woman who has the temerity to offer an opinion about a videogame.
You know what that's called? Yellow journalism. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Look at the number data and compare it to the SF voting block. I'll wait, and when you suddenly see that the SF voting block is exactly the same as the 'no award' I'm sure you can explain it. The numbers themselves tell the story that CHORF's got really upset that someone was trying to show that there was a massive voting block, and happily proved it for them.
Sad Puppies believes that the Hugo's can be reformed. Rabid Puppies believes the entire thing should be burned and started oer from scratch. In the end, they were proven right that the Hugo's are being vote blocked and that it needs to be fixed.
The same reason why some people still build stuff using tubes even though a IC could do it, easier, faster, and cheaper.