I'm in the same boat as he is, and I know what he means.
It's not about denying access to ponies or princesses. It's about (1) not assuming an interest or lack of interest (relatively easy - my daughter seems just as fond of Cookie Monster and Thomas the Tank Engine as Abby and Madeline) and (2) not accidentally dropping the social cues that lead girls to see certain things as important in a way boys wouldn't.
It's very, very, hard, for example, for a dad not to tell my daughter how beautiful she is. But imagine, however, the effect it has on you if people around you, from the day you're born, talk about how pretty and beautiful you are. I never had that, because I'm male. My mother called me handsome from time to time, but it was never drilled into me that beauty was so important.
If she wants to consider it important, let her determine that herself.
FWIW my experience of women as part of development teams has been largely positive, with one exception (not the woman herself, though she was fairly fiesty which in this case didn't help - or maybe it protected her, I don't know, but her supervisor, who was an out and out misogynist. She eventually left, because the company we worked for at the time kinda sucked like that.) That is, respect amongst male programmers for female programmers seem to be completely in line with what you'd expect for males respecting males.
Now, that said, I can't speak as a female in the same situation, so while the degree of respect might have been entirely reasonable, other factors may creep in that, as a male, I'm unaware of.
All I can say is as the father of a 2yo girl myself, I'm desperately hoping she has whatever opportunities she wants when she grows up. I think we in software development is decent enough that it's a field I'd have no trouble recommending to her. But, obviously, in the end it all depends on the group you end up working for.
There was an article on Slashdot about something GamerGate did that was going against the very journalists you're claiming GamerGate is ignoring. Slashcode even helpfully linked to it as a related story. It's right there at the top. The only way you missed it is if you're willfully ignoring it, which of course you are.
Not on my version of the page, no. The only link GamerGate related in the related stories list at least as rendered here is the Intel/Gamasutra/"Gamers" are dead thing (which I assume you cannot possibly mean, as it doesn't involve unethical journalism.)
FWIW, I also did your job for you. "My job?" I pretend to hear you ask. Well, yes. You're an advocate for a movement, and so the onus is on you to push forward examples of what you're fighting against, something you're refusing to do on principle.
So I trawled through a bunch of GamerGate Twitter streams, including Nero's. I looked at the Reddit KotakuInAction subreddit, which appears to be an organizing grounds for GamerGate. I looked at the negative responses to people like thequinnconspiracy and followed the links they were claiming.
And during this time, I found... zero cases. Well, let me back up a moment: there was one, involving Gawker, that was obviously a case of unethical journalism, with a journalist, as a joke, taking on a pro-bullying-nerds position, and GG rallying the troops against them. But I'm not counting it basically because it was a response to GG. The Gawker idiot would never have made the joke if there wasn't some giant group he thought represented nerds running around being apparently nasty and evil.
But in terms of independent cases of journalistic corruption? As in EA offers to swamp SuperGamerMagazine.comnetorg with expensive ads in response to good reviews for The Sims 4? As in BioWare gives Slimy McSlimepants from AGN his own Asari sex doll in exchange for a great review of Mass Effect 7?
No. Not one example. Nothing.
What I did see was primarily articles about how terrible the meida was because they're lying about GamerGate. Not lying about video games, but GamerGate.
I also saw some fake conspiracies. Yep, fake. I mean so fake it should have been obvious to everyone commenting. Like an email "leaked" from The Guardian that the "leaker" claimed contained an attack on GamerGate. Except it didn't. It contained an attack on people using the #killallmen hashtag. It was right there in the subject line. The leaker hoped that people would take a sentence that occured after the attack on #killallmen users, saying that a prominent feminist would be in the office to discuss GamerGate the next day, as meaning that the attack was about GamerGate.
Add that to the attacks on Quinn for having intimate relations with a journalist... which turned out to also be a fake conspiracy because said journalist wrote nothing about her, absolutely nothing, after the relationship started.
Add to that the attacks on Gamasutra for writing an article attacking gamers... except it didn't, it attacked the industry for only writing games aimed at "gamers" (the quotes are important, and yes, they appeared in the article), that is, a demographic of white immature teenage males that no longer makes up even a plurality of gamers. Oh, and even if it had attacked gamers... corruption? Really?
Well anyway, I'm seeing a pattern here.
Does the pattern matter? Well, probably not. In the end, the Guardian, and Gamasutra, and Quinn issues were probably peripheral, a movement desperately trying to find a positive identity when it knows there's considerable darkness holding it together. Quinn was attacked, not the journalist she had a relationship with. The death of "Gamers" article was written by a self-avowed feminist but wasn't radically different from criticism published elsewhere. The attacks on another feminist for publishing videos reviewing games from a feminist analytical point of view. The attacks on a female game dev
The journalist did mention her game. It wasn't a review but was definite positive exposure for a game that would not have gotten if they were not close friends.
According to Wikipedia, with a bunch of cites so I assume it's verified:
While Grayson had written an article about the failed GAME_JAM web reality show that Quinn participated in[23] and Kotaku had also mentioned her game,[24] both occurred before the relationship began.[20][8]
Yes, we are giving you examples. Your head is so far up your SJW ass that you're just claiming they're all "debunked" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to bother reiterating them since there are a ton of examples already posted.
1. Strike One: claiming you're giving examples while not actually giving examples.
2. Strike Two: pejorative attack on SJWs. Again: if this was about journalism, you'd be criticizing journalists, not people who believe sexism is wrong.
The simple reality is that corruption is happening in the gaming media and GamerGate is fighting to expose that. Not surprisingly, the media being exposed is fighting back by trying to control the story and paint GamerGate as being "sexist."
How do you expose something if you're unwilling, after being asked directly, to give an example? If I asked you "Oh really, Wikileaks is about exposing government malfeasance huh? Give me one example!", you'd hit back with "That video of the helicopter gunship attacking first responders", not "We've given you plenty of examples you're just being mislead by the Mexicans!"
The whole "sexist" thing is just journalists trying desperately to change the subject.
So attack the journalists then. Go on, start now. If it's not about sexism, you'll never need to use the term "SJW" again.
You are a shining example of why GamerGate looks a bunch of sexist nerds hating on women. You attack SJWs, do not attack journalists, claim you're attacking journalists, but given a straightforward opportunity to give an example of something they've done refuse to answer.
Those you're up against? They're actually giving examples of GamerGate attacking female game writers and non-corrupt female commentators. That's why they're more believable.
Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean it isn't happening
No, really, it isn't happening. People here who are pro-GamerGate are not, when they claim it's anti-corruption in journalism, giving examples. That's why I asked for examples.
And you're clearly ignoring the evidence when you claim that Nathan Grayson "did not do anything unethical in return" meaning I'm wasting my time replying to you
You're wasting your time writing stuff like that because you're claiming he did something unethical without explaining what.
In case you missed it, and clearly you did, the core GamerGate complaints started with journalists that were giving money to the developers they were supposed to be covering
Again, no examples. For fuck sake, all I asked for were examples.
There was the discovery of the "journo-list", a mailing list where gaming journalists were collaborating and conspiring to turn this into an issue about misogyny instead of corruption - you know, exactly what happened!
"There was the discovery of"... occurred rather a long time later. And it doesn't make much sense unless you're implying that said journalists infiltrated GamerGate and started dropping the term SJW everywhere, perhaps pretending it meant "Standard Journalist who is Whoring themselves" rather than "Social Justice Warrior".
The reason people are using SJWs as a pejorative is A) because it IS and B) the journalists who were caught saw that they could exploit the SJW crowd and get them to completely drown out the complaints
I hate to tell you this but this comes across both as a bizarre and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory (the corrupt journalists ganged up and made it sound like a social justice issue to people not involved in the discussion?), and also as dodging the question.
All I asked for is for those people making the claim that this is about journalism to do the same thing that the people making the claim that this is about misogyny to do the same thing: to quote examples. And I pointed out that the fact that in this thread, they've chosen not to do so, and that this is hurting their argument.
It is. Responding to me saying "It is too about journalism and you're a poopy head because you haven't been reading enough of what we've written elsewhere" isn't helpful. It hurts your claim.
Again, because I end up having to point this out in every thread: the manufacturers (the "auto exec" in this fantasy) are not fans of the dealership franchise system.
I know this personally, I worked for a company that handled the relationship between dealerships and manufacturers for about 15 years, including at various points at least one country's division of each of the big 3. My job was in part helping my employer in trying to tweak the business models of dealerships to make them the least burden on manufacturers they could be. Because they are a burden. And manufacturers see them as such.
The franchise laws are there because of a combination of lobbying by the dealerships themselves and perceived historical abuses by the manufacturers. No other reasons. I can tell you it's almost certain that, behind closed doors of course, Ford, Chrysler, and GM's top brass are cheering Tesla on.
Can we have a rule that next time someone says "It's about X" or "It's about Y" you justify it by bringing in some context and describe actions by whatever group that fit the assertion.
Right now I see a lot of people like you claiming it's about journalistic ethics, but no apparent examples of GamerGate actually attacking _journalists_ for something clearly unethical.
The argument that it's actually a movement rooted in misogyny are currently much more persuasive because those making that case are actually giving examples: hounding an indie, unmarried, female developer for having sex with a journalist (who did not do anything unethical in return), hounding a feminist writing an article about changing video game marketing demographics, and hounding another female developer who made fun of (actually, retweeted someone else making fun of) sexist comments directed at her. Plus the use of "SJW" as a pejorative and the constant assertion that SJWs are "the other side" in this debate. If it's about misogyny, you'd expect that. If it's about journalism, you'd expect, you know, journalists to be the enemy...
1. (The majority) They/you/someone says it's about sexism, but it's really about journalism!
2. Oh yeah? Well there are too women who support #GamerGate! Here's a selfie someone else took of themselves to prove it!
3. There's a conspiracy to misrepresent us by the gaming press! Just look at this biased Wall Street Journal article!
4. Buy our stuff! shortlink.net/spamspamspam #GamerGate #Ebola #Obama #tcot #FanGate #Benghazi #SomethingElseTrendingRightNow
5. #GamerGate people are misogynist jackasses! Stop the harassment of {Latest victim} now! #StopGamerGate2014
So... uh. Maybe you guys need to start afresh with a new hashtag? It's fair to say that whatever your movement's "aims", they're not being discussed. You certainly aren't pointing at specific cases of journalistic corruption or anything like that, the entire thing seems to be meta.
Because you're wrong. Android doesn't have a desktop or file manager, and isn't centered around running remote applications using web standards. ChromeOS is built for cloud computing, Android is primarily a mobile device operating system designed for situations where limited bandwidth is available.
The GP is right, unfortunately. You want greater transparency on stuff that matters, but the GP has quoted a journalist indicating that their idea of transparency doesn't match yours, and this article is about what journalists want, not what you, me, Glenn Greenwald, etc, want.
What you're - perhaps unintentionally - highlighting is itself interesting although something we've known for years that's illustrated perfectly by, say, Politico - modern political journalism is not about holding politicians to account, it's about gossip, being in with the in-crowd, and confusing the public interest with what the media thinks the public are "interested" in.
Not sure the studios will care. They've always been reliant on a constantly changing group of distributors/networks/etc to commission and find ways to pay for their productions. On top of that, many are part of much bigger organizations that are perfectly capable of producing their own online equivalents to Netflix.
And, you know, I think that's a good thing. The biggest problems with entertainment right now are the multiple layers of indirection that exist between "consumer" and producer, including the last minute diversion to accountability to advertisers. That is what needs to go, not the people who actually do the work under those awful conditions.
It's easier to monitor someone if you know they came from {$infected area} than if they had to take steps to conceal the fact because they were desperate to come home (or, you know, leave a disease-ridden hellhole.)
It might be better to simply bite the bullet, acknowledge that there is Ebola in Texas, and after giving non-residents a chance to leave, simple seal up Texas and route all flights to and from infected areas to that state.
Well, he wants to access his limited security account from a trusted machine that belongs to someone else, which is not quite the same thing. You're looking at it from a black box security point of view, but in practice he knows the parties involved, he knows what the security set up is, and he knows the degree of control he has over the situation, and given those inputs he's making a perfectly reasonable decision to enter his password into the box involved.
And yes, there are no good password managers, because they don't handle that situation, and that situation is entirely reasonable and normal. You can tut tut, and say that from your point of view there's no difference between entering your Amazon password and enabling one-click purchases on a laptop left in an airport with a yellow sticky that says "FREE INTERWEBS ACCESS HERE HONEST!!", and entering your Netflix password on a branded Roku box owned by a friend, watching a movie with him, and then logging out afterwards to prevent any accidents. But actually, no, they're not the same situation.
One of the downsides of computing is that when it comes to "security" or a whole host of other processes, some people design "solutions" for a specific set of cases and then decide that those cases are the only ones in existance, because it's easier to pretend they are than to actually produce something that solves the other problems. From anti-spam "solutions" to
password portals, we're still trying to grasp the fact that these solutions don't work. At the end of the day, developers have seen the "bug between chair and keyboard" make so many problems, they forget that it's still the case the person they're hobbling is the person that's trying to get shit done. Design an impractical security system, and you're making things less secure, because you've just wasted time - yours and the user's - building something that'll never get used.
This is why I hate password managers as a security device. As a convenience, so I don't have to type "squiggleslashamazonAAA" every time I log into Amazon? Sure. As a security system, so nobody - not even me - will ever figure out my password is "09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0"? Fuck no.
I've yet to come across a "good" password manager. They may exist, but almost all, for example, are installed on a single machine or are part of a single app (web browser, SSH client, etc) that may or may not have a mechanism to be sync'd, using "trust me, I'm safe, honest" security, between different machines.
Even at home, I don't use a single computer. In practice, in the real world, we all now have times we need to access the same resource from work, from our primary home computer, from a phone, from a tablet, etc.
It's easier and more secure, for me and I suspect everyone else, to adopt the classic "Use two or three base passwords that contain a field associated with the website itself (eg. "password123.sd", "password123.yh" for Slashdot and Yahoo respectively) than constantly cutting and pasting between an app on a single machine you may or may not have access to when you need it.
We need something better than password hell. We had a chance with OAuth, and kinda blew it thanks to the fact that me logging into a website with Goohoo or Facespace almost always involves giving it permission to access some unknown poorly defined information about me that I don't necessarily want it to have (and don't necessarily want Goohoo or Facespace to have either)
I'm not sure I'd describe either OS as better than the other, even assuming Google builds a desktop UI for Android. They both fall short, being designed for a specific purpose with no functionality outside of that purpose - even stuff we'd regard as normal for an operating system like a user interface for file management in Android's case - being provided within the OS. And I'm not sure how practical building such a thing is.
Android is a mobile OS oriented towards small local apps that use minimal bandwidth. ChromeOS is a cloud based OS oriented towards remote apps running in the cloud using web standards to provide the user interface. They're not the same thing, or trying to do the same thing, and one couldn't easily substitute for the other, which is probably why, years after everyone started speculating on ChromeOS's imminent death given Google's support for Android, it hasn't happened.
Google is providing more support for running Android apps within ChromeOS, and it's more likely we'll see that built upon and extended than one OS be deprecated in favor of the other, at least, in the next five years.
most respectable physicists were deeply skeptical about manned flight
I assume you mean "manned, powered, heavier than air flight" because manned flight was a thing back then and had been for hundreds of years.
But that said... citation required anyway. I doubt reputable scientists were deeply skeptical at the time, given that power plants were getting smaller and lighter and the principles were well known. Saying powered manned heavier-than-air flight was impossible at the time would be like saying today that you're skeptical it will ever be possible to drive from New York to Miami in an electric sports car on a single charge.
I can't comment on getskeleton, I've never heard of it and the one page summary is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but I do use Bootstrap, and while it can produce nice results (yay responsiveness), I'm not remotely convinced it is somehow better than tables in terms of producing websites that separate content from presentation. You end up building tables anyway, except that instead of using tr/td you use divs with row/col-md-694 classes.
It's actually as if Bootstrap's designers know that actually you want to use tables but know it's politically incorrect to use them...
(Again, before you yell at me, yes, I like the fact there's some degree of responsiveness not possible with 1995 HTML tables, but you have to wonder whether if HTML had evolved with something other than CSS, we'd have a responsive websites system built around the tables designers have always found easier to use.)
I'm guessing they say a third. As opposed to a threeth. Do you say a threeth? What about a half? Is that a twoth?;-)
(Yeah, it starts being based on the same English names as digits from 1/5 on, but everything bigger than 1/5 uses a different word. Half, Third, Quarter, rather than Twoth, Threeth, and Fourth)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the same boat as he is, and I know what he means.
It's not about denying access to ponies or princesses. It's about (1) not assuming an interest or lack of interest (relatively easy - my daughter seems just as fond of Cookie Monster and Thomas the Tank Engine as Abby and Madeline) and (2) not accidentally dropping the social cues that lead girls to see certain things as important in a way boys wouldn't.
It's very, very, hard, for example, for a dad not to tell my daughter how beautiful she is. But imagine, however, the effect it has on you if people around you, from the day you're born, talk about how pretty and beautiful you are. I never had that, because I'm male. My mother called me handsome from time to time, but it was never drilled into me that beauty was so important.
If she wants to consider it important, let her determine that herself.
FWIW my experience of women as part of development teams has been largely positive, with one exception (not the woman herself, though she was fairly fiesty which in this case didn't help - or maybe it protected her, I don't know, but her supervisor, who was an out and out misogynist. She eventually left, because the company we worked for at the time kinda sucked like that.) That is, respect amongst male programmers for female programmers seem to be completely in line with what you'd expect for males respecting males.
Now, that said, I can't speak as a female in the same situation, so while the degree of respect might have been entirely reasonable, other factors may creep in that, as a male, I'm unaware of.
All I can say is as the father of a 2yo girl myself, I'm desperately hoping she has whatever opportunities she wants when she grows up. I think we in software development is decent enough that it's a field I'd have no trouble recommending to her. But, obviously, in the end it all depends on the group you end up working for.
Not on my version of the page, no. The only link GamerGate related in the related stories list at least as rendered here is the Intel/Gamasutra/"Gamers" are dead thing (which I assume you cannot possibly mean, as it doesn't involve unethical journalism.)
FWIW, I also did your job for you. "My job?" I pretend to hear you ask. Well, yes. You're an advocate for a movement, and so the onus is on you to push forward examples of what you're fighting against, something you're refusing to do on principle.
So I trawled through a bunch of GamerGate Twitter streams, including Nero's. I looked at the Reddit KotakuInAction subreddit, which appears to be an organizing grounds for GamerGate. I looked at the negative responses to people like thequinnconspiracy and followed the links they were claiming.
And during this time, I found... zero cases. Well, let me back up a moment: there was one, involving Gawker, that was obviously a case of unethical journalism, with a journalist, as a joke, taking on a pro-bullying-nerds position, and GG rallying the troops against them. But I'm not counting it basically because it was a response to GG. The Gawker idiot would never have made the joke if there wasn't some giant group he thought represented nerds running around being apparently nasty and evil.
But in terms of independent cases of journalistic corruption? As in EA offers to swamp SuperGamerMagazine.comnetorg with expensive ads in response to good reviews for The Sims 4? As in BioWare gives Slimy McSlimepants from AGN his own Asari sex doll in exchange for a great review of Mass Effect 7?
No. Not one example. Nothing.
What I did see was primarily articles about how terrible the meida was because they're lying about GamerGate. Not lying about video games, but GamerGate.
I also saw some fake conspiracies. Yep, fake. I mean so fake it should have been obvious to everyone commenting. Like an email "leaked" from The Guardian that the "leaker" claimed contained an attack on GamerGate. Except it didn't. It contained an attack on people using the #killallmen hashtag. It was right there in the subject line. The leaker hoped that people would take a sentence that occured after the attack on #killallmen users, saying that a prominent feminist would be in the office to discuss GamerGate the next day, as meaning that the attack was about GamerGate.
Add that to the attacks on Quinn for having intimate relations with a journalist... which turned out to also be a fake conspiracy because said journalist wrote nothing about her, absolutely nothing, after the relationship started.
Add to that the attacks on Gamasutra for writing an article attacking gamers... except it didn't, it attacked the industry for only writing games aimed at "gamers" (the quotes are important, and yes, they appeared in the article), that is, a demographic of white immature teenage males that no longer makes up even a plurality of gamers. Oh, and even if it had attacked gamers... corruption? Really?
Well anyway, I'm seeing a pattern here.
Does the pattern matter? Well, probably not. In the end, the Guardian, and Gamasutra, and Quinn issues were probably peripheral, a movement desperately trying to find a positive identity when it knows there's considerable darkness holding it together. Quinn was attacked, not the journalist she had a relationship with. The death of "Gamers" article was written by a self-avowed feminist but wasn't radically different from criticism published elsewhere. The attacks on another feminist for publishing videos reviewing games from a feminist analytical point of view. The attacks on a female game dev
According to Wikipedia, with a bunch of cites so I assume it's verified:
References are:
So it does appear to be demonstrably exposure for a game unrelated to the relationship between Grayson and Quinn.
1. Strike One: claiming you're giving examples while not actually giving examples.
2. Strike Two: pejorative attack on SJWs. Again: if this was about journalism, you'd be criticizing journalists, not people who believe sexism is wrong.
How do you expose something if you're unwilling, after being asked directly, to give an example? If I asked you "Oh really, Wikileaks is about exposing government malfeasance huh? Give me one example!", you'd hit back with "That video of the helicopter gunship attacking first responders", not "We've given you plenty of examples you're just being mislead by the Mexicans!"
So attack the journalists then. Go on, start now. If it's not about sexism, you'll never need to use the term "SJW" again.
You are a shining example of why GamerGate looks a bunch of sexist nerds hating on women. You attack SJWs, do not attack journalists, claim you're attacking journalists, but given a straightforward opportunity to give an example of something they've done refuse to answer.
Those you're up against? They're actually giving examples of GamerGate attacking female game writers and non-corrupt female commentators. That's why they're more believable.
No, really, it isn't happening. People here who are pro-GamerGate are not, when they claim it's anti-corruption in journalism, giving examples. That's why I asked for examples.
You're wasting your time writing stuff like that because you're claiming he did something unethical without explaining what.
Again, no examples. For fuck sake, all I asked for were examples.
"There was the discovery of"... occurred rather a long time later. And it doesn't make much sense unless you're implying that said journalists infiltrated GamerGate and started dropping the term SJW everywhere, perhaps pretending it meant "Standard Journalist who is Whoring themselves" rather than "Social Justice Warrior".
I hate to tell you this but this comes across both as a bizarre and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory (the corrupt journalists ganged up and made it sound like a social justice issue to people not involved in the discussion?), and also as dodging the question.
All I asked for is for those people making the claim that this is about journalism to do the same thing that the people making the claim that this is about misogyny to do the same thing: to quote examples. And I pointed out that the fact that in this thread, they've chosen not to do so, and that this is hurting their argument.
It is. Responding to me saying "It is too about journalism and you're a poopy head because you haven't been reading enough of what we've written elsewhere" isn't helpful. It hurts your claim.
Again, because I end up having to point this out in every thread: the manufacturers (the "auto exec" in this fantasy) are not fans of the dealership franchise system.
I know this personally, I worked for a company that handled the relationship between dealerships and manufacturers for about 15 years, including at various points at least one country's division of each of the big 3. My job was in part helping my employer in trying to tweak the business models of dealerships to make them the least burden on manufacturers they could be. Because they are a burden. And manufacturers see them as such.
The franchise laws are there because of a combination of lobbying by the dealerships themselves and perceived historical abuses by the manufacturers. No other reasons. I can tell you it's almost certain that, behind closed doors of course, Ford, Chrysler, and GM's top brass are cheering Tesla on.
Can we have a rule that next time someone says "It's about X" or "It's about Y" you justify it by bringing in some context and describe actions by whatever group that fit the assertion.
Right now I see a lot of people like you claiming it's about journalistic ethics, but no apparent examples of GamerGate actually attacking _journalists_ for something clearly unethical.
The argument that it's actually a movement rooted in misogyny are currently much more persuasive because those making that case are actually giving examples: hounding an indie, unmarried, female developer for having sex with a journalist (who did not do anything unethical in return), hounding a feminist writing an article about changing video game marketing demographics, and hounding another female developer who made fun of (actually, retweeted someone else making fun of) sexist comments directed at her. Plus the use of "SJW" as a pejorative and the constant assertion that SJWs are "the other side" in this debate. If it's about misogyny, you'd expect that. If it's about journalism, you'd expect, you know, journalists to be the enemy...
Top right.
FWIW, I just did an experiment and tried to verify both of your claims.
Right now, if I go to https://twitter.com/search?q=%... what I get are posts along the lines of:
1. (The majority) They/you/someone says it's about sexism, but it's really about journalism!
2. Oh yeah? Well there are too women who support #GamerGate! Here's a selfie someone else took of themselves to prove it!
3. There's a conspiracy to misrepresent us by the gaming press! Just look at this biased Wall Street Journal article!
4. Buy our stuff! shortlink.net/spamspamspam #GamerGate #Ebola #Obama #tcot #FanGate #Benghazi #SomethingElseTrendingRightNow
5. #GamerGate people are misogynist jackasses! Stop the harassment of {Latest victim} now! #StopGamerGate2014
So... uh. Maybe you guys need to start afresh with a new hashtag? It's fair to say that whatever your movement's "aims", they're not being discussed. You certainly aren't pointing at specific cases of journalistic corruption or anything like that, the entire thing seems to be meta.
Because you're wrong. Android doesn't have a desktop or file manager, and isn't centered around running remote applications using web standards. ChromeOS is built for cloud computing, Android is primarily a mobile device operating system designed for situations where limited bandwidth is available.
The GP is right, unfortunately. You want greater transparency on stuff that matters, but the GP has quoted a journalist indicating that their idea of transparency doesn't match yours, and this article is about what journalists want, not what you, me, Glenn Greenwald, etc, want.
What you're - perhaps unintentionally - highlighting is itself interesting although something we've known for years that's illustrated perfectly by, say, Politico - modern political journalism is not about holding politicians to account, it's about gossip, being in with the in-crowd, and confusing the public interest with what the media thinks the public are "interested" in.
EBOLAGHAZI!!!!
Not sure the studios will care. They've always been reliant on a constantly changing group of distributors/networks/etc to commission and find ways to pay for their productions. On top of that, many are part of much bigger organizations that are perfectly capable of producing their own online equivalents to Netflix.
And, you know, I think that's a good thing. The biggest problems with entertainment right now are the multiple layers of indirection that exist between "consumer" and producer, including the last minute diversion to accountability to advertisers. That is what needs to go, not the people who actually do the work under those awful conditions.
It's easier to monitor someone if you know they came from {$infected area} than if they had to take steps to conceal the fact because they were desperate to come home (or, you know, leave a disease-ridden hellhole.)
It might be better to simply bite the bullet, acknowledge that there is Ebola in Texas, and after giving non-residents a chance to leave, simple seal up Texas and route all flights to and from infected areas to that state.
They don't need to, everyone knows ESC/P codes off by heart...
Well, he wants to access his limited security account from a trusted machine that belongs to someone else, which is not quite the same thing. You're looking at it from a black box security point of view, but in practice he knows the parties involved, he knows what the security set up is, and he knows the degree of control he has over the situation, and given those inputs he's making a perfectly reasonable decision to enter his password into the box involved.
And yes, there are no good password managers, because they don't handle that situation, and that situation is entirely reasonable and normal. You can tut tut, and say that from your point of view there's no difference between entering your Amazon password and enabling one-click purchases on a laptop left in an airport with a yellow sticky that says "FREE INTERWEBS ACCESS HERE HONEST!!", and entering your Netflix password on a branded Roku box owned by a friend, watching a movie with him, and then logging out afterwards to prevent any accidents. But actually, no, they're not the same situation.
One of the downsides of computing is that when it comes to "security" or a whole host of other processes, some people design "solutions" for a specific set of cases and then decide that those cases are the only ones in existance, because it's easier to pretend they are than to actually produce something that solves the other problems. From anti-spam "solutions" to password portals, we're still trying to grasp the fact that these solutions don't work. At the end of the day, developers have seen the "bug between chair and keyboard" make so many problems, they forget that it's still the case the person they're hobbling is the person that's trying to get shit done. Design an impractical security system, and you're making things less secure, because you've just wasted time - yours and the user's - building something that'll never get used.
This is why I hate password managers as a security device. As a convenience, so I don't have to type "squiggleslashamazonAAA" every time I log into Amazon? Sure. As a security system, so nobody - not even me - will ever figure out my password is "09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0"? Fuck no.
I've yet to come across a "good" password manager. They may exist, but almost all, for example, are installed on a single machine or are part of a single app (web browser, SSH client, etc) that may or may not have a mechanism to be sync'd, using "trust me, I'm safe, honest" security, between different machines.
Even at home, I don't use a single computer. In practice, in the real world, we all now have times we need to access the same resource from work, from our primary home computer, from a phone, from a tablet, etc.
It's easier and more secure, for me and I suspect everyone else, to adopt the classic "Use two or three base passwords that contain a field associated with the website itself (eg. "password123.sd", "password123.yh" for Slashdot and Yahoo respectively) than constantly cutting and pasting between an app on a single machine you may or may not have access to when you need it.
We need something better than password hell. We had a chance with OAuth, and kinda blew it thanks to the fact that me logging into a website with Goohoo or Facespace almost always involves giving it permission to access some unknown poorly defined information about me that I don't necessarily want it to have (and don't necessarily want Goohoo or Facespace to have either)
It is an action version of the BBT.
Absolutely not. Copyright infringers should stay in jail where they belong, lest they re-offend.
Think of the children!
Android has no desktop UI.
I'm not sure I'd describe either OS as better than the other, even assuming Google builds a desktop UI for Android. They both fall short, being designed for a specific purpose with no functionality outside of that purpose - even stuff we'd regard as normal for an operating system like a user interface for file management in Android's case - being provided within the OS. And I'm not sure how practical building such a thing is.
Android is a mobile OS oriented towards small local apps that use minimal bandwidth. ChromeOS is a cloud based OS oriented towards remote apps running in the cloud using web standards to provide the user interface. They're not the same thing, or trying to do the same thing, and one couldn't easily substitute for the other, which is probably why, years after everyone started speculating on ChromeOS's imminent death given Google's support for Android, it hasn't happened.
Google is providing more support for running Android apps within ChromeOS, and it's more likely we'll see that built upon and extended than one OS be deprecated in favor of the other, at least, in the next five years.
I assume you mean "manned, powered, heavier than air flight" because manned flight was a thing back then and had been for hundreds of years.
But that said... citation required anyway. I doubt reputable scientists were deeply skeptical at the time, given that power plants were getting smaller and lighter and the principles were well known. Saying powered manned heavier-than-air flight was impossible at the time would be like saying today that you're skeptical it will ever be possible to drive from New York to Miami in an electric sports car on a single charge.
I can't comment on getskeleton, I've never heard of it and the one page summary is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but I do use Bootstrap, and while it can produce nice results (yay responsiveness), I'm not remotely convinced it is somehow better than tables in terms of producing websites that separate content from presentation. You end up building tables anyway, except that instead of using tr/td you use divs with row/col-md-694 classes.
It's actually as if Bootstrap's designers know that actually you want to use tables but know it's politically incorrect to use them...
(Again, before you yell at me, yes, I like the fact there's some degree of responsiveness not possible with 1995 HTML tables, but you have to wonder whether if HTML had evolved with something other than CSS, we'd have a responsive websites system built around the tables designers have always found easier to use.)
Because when you sell something, you have an obligation to provide the product sold.
Sell Internet access? Provide Internet access.
I'm guessing they say a third. As opposed to a threeth. Do you say a threeth? What about a half? Is that a twoth? ;-)
(Yeah, it starts being based on the same English names as digits from 1/5 on, but everything bigger than 1/5 uses a different word. Half, Third, Quarter, rather than Twoth, Threeth, and Fourth)