he fact a "Young male targetted" exists, a "Young female targetted" game also exists, doesn't preclude a 3rd game, "Young people, both genders" from also existing.
And that fact is what some people are trying to change. There's no particular reason to actively work at driving away one gender from your game.
It's an accusation. An issue is something that's actually been shown to exist.
And Riot investigated themselves, and apparently felt there was enough proof it existed to change their policy. Since it's an internal investigation, they are under no obligation to share the actual results with the public.
And generally, on white folks, a glowing tan is considered attractive, just as a healthy flush in the cheeks is more attractive than a goth palor or a crimson palor.
This statement is true today. It was not true in earlier generations.
What is attractive is the appearance you get by not doing the common labor of the day. So pre-industrialization, pale was attractive. Because it meant you weren't spending your time outside laboring. A goth palor was the look of wealth.
Today, most people work inside. So tan is attractive, because most (non-dark-skinned) people do not naturally get tan from their jobs, it's the look of people who have enough free time to get tan. Again, it is the look of wealth.
They haven't been proven in a court of law yet, so media coverage is going to use weasel terms like "accusations".
Waiting for them to be proven in a court of law is extremely expensive for Riot. So, better to fix the issue before it becomes that expensive.
As to whether or not the accusations are true, well that's up to Riot at this point. And they appear to believe that they are at least true enough to be an expensive liability.
Schumer did offer to authorize the funding, but to only appropriate 1.6B [...] n which case we'd still be in this exact same place where they are gridlocked over appropriations for a wall.
That's a detail of how funding a large project such as this would work. You can't build it in a year, so you appropriate it over several years. If you'd like another example, take a gander at the F-35's funding.
Does make one wonder why Schumer is so opposed to a wall now, if he was apparently fine with it before.
Already covered that. Elections have consequences. Even the ones Republicans lose.
The Democrats are in a much stronger position in 2019 than they were in 2017. Especially since all appropriations bills must originate in the House. So things they don't like but had to offer in a 2017 negotiation no longer have to be offered.
With Trump's favorability dropping over the shutdown and Pelosi's climbing, there is even less incentive for the Democrats to fold.
IOW, the Republicans and Trump invented a fake crisis, want billions to "fix" it, and aren't currently in the political position to actually get those billions, and their "YOU GOTTA DO WHAT I SAY!!" strategy isn't working with the electorate. There's a few ways Trump could save face here, but there's no reason for the Democrats to save Trump's image and even less reason for the Republicans in Congress to save Trump's image.
Yes, there were no aircraft capable of dropping an armored vehicle in WWII. Also, there was no way to have an NPC drive a tank to you or pick up the tank at a depot. The only possible mechanism is to make it appear out of thin air.:eyeroll:
(Btw, her prosthetic is modeled on an actual prosthetic from the era. So you should probably stop bitching about "cyborg" in your authenticity bullshit)
GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA [thehill.com], but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that
Elections have consequences. Even the elections Republicans lose.
Since the 2018 election happened, deals that were on the table in 2017 are no longer on the table. That's why people who are actually good at negotiation take such deals before events overtake them.
Graham was referring to a White House offer last January
That offer was not made by Trump, and immediately condemned by Trump. Turns out the Trump White House is a tad inconsistent.
Both were within the margin of error. And I assume you know what a "margin of error" is...at least better than all the pundits who preemptively declared those victories.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help.
No, Trump says all the Border patrol agents say that. But Trump has a very tenuous relationship with reality.
What CBP agents actually want depends on where they are stationed. Because each part of the border has its own problems. Some want more helicopters. Some need a road along the border. Almost all want more sensors and cameras.
And absolutely none want a massive concrete wall. Because that would mean they could not see through it to prepare for border crossings.
ot using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration
"Illegal Immigration" has not been this low since the 1970s. Without a wall. It's almost like someone is shoveling bullshit at you to get you scared so you vote for them.
What do you think the second order effect of giving citizenship to the DACA kids would be? Isn't the path to citizenship for H-1B a better solution?
These questions are quite pointless, because the DACA kids are already here. Discussion of some ideal set-up while ignoring what exists today is really dumb.
As for your questions themselves, H-1B visas should be eliminated. If a company needs to import workers, there are permanent work visas that already exist. Might need to increase the cut-off for those visas to make up for the loss of H-1B visas. This, btw, makes the "path to citizenship" moot.
As for what effects the DACA kids getting citizenship: not much. They're already here. They're already working.
What do you think the effect of not actively discussing border security would be?
Congratulations on coming out of that coma. Border security has been under active discussion since the W administration, when a bipartisan bill passed to build walls where they actually make sense on the border. Please try to catch up.
Multiple migrant caravan waves, scheduling simultaneous mass crossing attempts across multiple states in order to overwhelm Border Patrol?
Guess what? Asylum seekers don't do this. Because federal law and treaty obligations require that we let them into the country while their claim is being investigated. Those caravans don't need to rush the border, so they don't actually do that. But it's great for fearmongering towards people like you who haven't been paying attention.
At what point do you think we need to enforce immigration laws?
My personal belief is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Someone who abandons everything to walk 2000 miles isn't going to spend the rest of their life on the couch. They're going to be massively productive members of society, and statistics bear this out - immigrants are massively successful in the US. Legal or not.
But my personal belief is not the law.
The law says those caravans get to come in. When attempting to claim we need to follow immigration laws, it's probably a good idea to not demand breaking immigration laws.
Nope. That would require a functional strong central government. And thanks to the massive piles of cash we send to the drug cartels, Mexico doesn't have that.
No, the problem is that we are in a trade war and we will get our asses handed to us if we don't stop squabbling over petty partisian bullshit and win it.
The Department of Commerce is funded.
The major parties are like the cockpit created from the average characteristics of all pilots that was so far from what was desirable for any actual individual that several people died trying to fly it.
Polling does not bear this out. There's about 20% Republican. About 20% Republican-leaning, 30% Democratic, 20% Democratic-leaning, and 10% "other", which includes centrists, communists, NAZIs, and so on.
Those "leaning" people always vote for their associated party, or they don't vote. They never cross party lines. So about 40% of the population is pretty happy with the Republican party. About 50% of the population is pretty happy with the Democratic party.
The Post-WWII Centrism was an artifact of the Southern Realignment. Southerners still called themselves "Democrats" because they hated Lincoln that much, but the parties had shifted so that they were de-facto Republicans. And until the Civil Rights act, our government was a conflicted mess of cross-party coalitions, which gave the appearance of centrism but it was really personal coalitions - one Senator would build a faction within the chamber and if appeased would bring a collection of votes.
Then the Civil Rights act passed. Southerners hated that more than Lincoln, and it was enough to change their registration. Meanwhile, Northern Republicans who had been allied with Western Democrats suddenly found their party no longer fit. And they gradually became moderate Democrats.
The result is we've returned to the sort of ideological split our country has had since it was founded, with the exception of that post-WWII period. So, no, we're not going to have any more "Tip n Ronnie" moments anytime soon.
Ohhh you mean the big landslide taking it back movement that was supposed to sweep the house and senate in the publics outrage over Trump that had people like yourself scratching their heads and saying "at least we got the house".
So another problem we're having is awful media coverage of politics. The only people described the election like this are the morons trying to fill air time before the election actually ended.
and saying "at least we got the house"... barely. I haven't followed along since
And that's why you're wrong. The swing in the House was the largest since Watergate. Second largest since WWII. So yeah, it was a landslide.
It just took longer than the pundits wanted to count all the votes, so they decided it was a "disappointment" at +15 with more than 50 races still being counted. And then you stopped paying attention because you had been properly misinformed.
The Senate was forecast to end up +6 Republican. They lost 2 they were supposed to win easily, and the 4 they did pick up were much, much closer than anyone forecast. They only people talking about a Senate flip were, again, the morons trying to fill air time. Because they thought a Democratic Senate would create more drama for the reality TV show they want politics to be.
I guess I've been too busy being pissed about the shame voter report cards your billionaire supporters and party sent to neighborhoods they thought would vote for them alongside encouraging voting of people demographically likely to support the opposition that included an absentee ballot form that would disqualify them from actually being allowed to vote when it would be counted.
So, one county in North Carolina, where only the Republican party did this, is what happened all over the nation? By both parties? [Citation Required].
You are a perfect example of what's wrong with politics today. You stop paying attention when the pretty people go to commercial, leaving you utterly and completely uninformed. Just like those you decry want you to be.
And you want to blame those of us who actually keep paying attention for it.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives?
What gives is a wall only makes sense on part of our Southern border. Geography, geology and land ownership mean the other parts would be better covered by sensors, cameras, roads for CBP vehicles, funding for helicopters, and so on. There's already walls on the border where they make sense.
There's things like a very large river running along the border. You can't build a wall in the middle of it. At least if you want the wall to last. The river also floods regularly so you can't build the wall right next to the river, unless you want to rebuild that wall all the time. So now you have to build the wall a ways away from the river. We'd kinda like to not seize millions of acres from Americans and effectively give them to Mexico.
That ebil caravan full of brown people? They're seeking asylum. They go directly to ports of entry and present themselves....and they did just that. US law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while we investigate their claims....and the vast majority of the time their claims hold up to that investigation. It turns out people don't just abandon everything and walk 2000 miles on a lark. But since they're coming to ports-of-entry, a wall doesn't do shit.
Drugs? Those are being smuggled through ports of entry, tunnels, boats and aircraft according to the DEA and CBP. Again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Terrorists? CBP says those arrive via airports or our Northern border. So again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Y'all used to think the government spending money on things that don't do shit was a bad thing.
Pro-tip 1: The budget bill that passed the Senate before Christmas passed 93-6. 93 is a little bit more than 60.
Pro-tip 2: Budget bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority via Reconciliation.
The REPUBLICAN house actually passed a 5.7 Billion Wall bill before christmas
The House passed a bill without a wall. The Senate amended that bill, and passed it 93-6. Trump said he would sign this bill. It needed to go back to the House because of the amendments.
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and others started attacking Trump for agreeing to sign the bill. Trump suddenly decided the wall must be in the bill.
Pelosi passed the same bill that passed the Senate 93-6. She has also passed bills for individual parts of the government, taken verbatim from that 93-6 bill.
Also, in 2017, Pelosi and Shumer offered to pay for the entire wall ($27B). In return, they wanted visas and a path to citizenship for the DACA kids. If Republicans really wanted that wall, wouldn't that have been a very good deal to take? Especially since Trump was forbidden by the courts from deporting the DACA kids anyway.
This is entirely on the Republicans and their utter inability to govern. And Trump's fear of Ann Coulter.
Slashdot Mirror
Makeup targeted at young women may contain things that turn off other groups. They should sell makeup targeted at normal men...and go _broke_.
There are an enormous number of skincare and beauty products marketed to both genders.
It's not like the "for men" products from Proctor and Gamble are actually different than their "for women" products.....sorry to shock you.
WTF is wrong with making games enjoyed by gamers?
What indeed? Why exclude a large number of gamers so that you can feel like you're sticking it to the fembots?
So, are you that clueless, or have you not played that many video games?
he fact a "Young male targetted" exists, a "Young female targetted" game also exists, doesn't preclude a 3rd game, "Young people, both genders" from also existing.
And that fact is what some people are trying to change. There's no particular reason to actively work at driving away one gender from your game.
but must every game be made so it appeals to both genders?
You'd have to demonstrate there is a benefit to actively trying to exclude one first.
It's an accusation. An issue is something that's actually been shown to exist.
And Riot investigated themselves, and apparently felt there was enough proof it existed to change their policy. Since it's an internal investigation, they are under no obligation to share the actual results with the public.
So you adhere to "guilty until proven innocent" I see.
So you are completely illiterate, I see. After all, there was no guilt assigned in my post.
And generally, on white folks, a glowing tan is considered attractive, just as a healthy flush in the cheeks is more attractive than a goth palor or a crimson palor.
This statement is true today. It was not true in earlier generations.
What is attractive is the appearance you get by not doing the common labor of the day. So pre-industrialization, pale was attractive. Because it meant you weren't spending your time outside laboring. A goth palor was the look of wealth.
Today, most people work inside. So tan is attractive, because most (non-dark-skinned) people do not naturally get tan from their jobs, it's the look of people who have enough free time to get tan. Again, it is the look of wealth.
Or how the presence of a "Young men" game makes it so "Young female" games can't exist ?
The fact that you think a game can not be made that appeals to both genders is an indication of where the cluelessness resides.
"Our story says that _____ are all dumb and useless. How odd that _____ doesn't like our game".
The survey was about measuring their legal liability. If enough people felt discriminated against, that's expensive.
So now we simply react to "accusations"
They haven't been proven in a court of law yet, so media coverage is going to use weasel terms like "accusations".
Waiting for them to be proven in a court of law is extremely expensive for Riot. So, better to fix the issue before it becomes that expensive.
As to whether or not the accusations are true, well that's up to Riot at this point. And they appear to believe that they are at least true enough to be an expensive liability.
How sexist do you have to be to believe women and minorities need "special" games and can't just play what everyone else plays.
How clueless do you have to be to believe games targeted at young white men may contain things that turn off other groups?
Schumer did offer to authorize the funding, but to only appropriate 1.6B [...] n which case we'd still be in this exact same place where they are gridlocked over appropriations for a wall.
That's a detail of how funding a large project such as this would work. You can't build it in a year, so you appropriate it over several years. If you'd like another example, take a gander at the F-35's funding.
Does make one wonder why Schumer is so opposed to a wall now, if he was apparently fine with it before.
Already covered that. Elections have consequences. Even the ones Republicans lose.
The Democrats are in a much stronger position in 2019 than they were in 2017. Especially since all appropriations bills must originate in the House. So things they don't like but had to offer in a 2017 negotiation no longer have to be offered.
With Trump's favorability dropping over the shutdown and Pelosi's climbing, there is even less incentive for the Democrats to fold.
IOW, the Republicans and Trump invented a fake crisis, want billions to "fix" it, and aren't currently in the political position to actually get those billions, and their "YOU GOTTA DO WHAT I SAY!!" strategy isn't working with the electorate. There's a few ways Trump could save face here, but there's no reason for the Democrats to save Trump's image and even less reason for the Republicans in Congress to save Trump's image.
Releasing what is ostensibly the same game five times in a row was surely never going to keep making good money.
It works for all of EA's sports titles. Can't blame them too much for taking a shot at annualizing a shooter.
One is required for gameplay
Yes, there were no aircraft capable of dropping an armored vehicle in WWII. Also, there was no way to have an NPC drive a tank to you or pick up the tank at a depot. The only possible mechanism is to make it appear out of thin air. :eyeroll:
(Btw, her prosthetic is modeled on an actual prosthetic from the era. So you should probably stop bitching about "cyborg" in your authenticity bullshit)
My point is that if you have an ongoing, recurrent problem with this, then it's not the police, because the police would have been sued already
There was an ongoing, recurrent problem with this in the US, on one farm in Nebraska.
No lawsuits.
I'd be interested in a citation for:
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
The analysis in the article is shit, but the offer it covers was made.
GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA [thehill.com], but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that
Elections have consequences. Even the elections Republicans lose.
Since the 2018 election happened, deals that were on the table in 2017 are no longer on the table. That's why people who are actually good at negotiation take such deals before events overtake them.
Graham was referring to a White House offer last January
That offer was not made by Trump, and immediately condemned by Trump. Turns out the Trump White House is a tad inconsistent.
Hillary won and Brexit didn't happen, right?
Both were within the margin of error. And I assume you know what a "margin of error" is...at least better than all the pundits who preemptively declared those victories.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help.
No, Trump says all the Border patrol agents say that. But Trump has a very tenuous relationship with reality.
What CBP agents actually want depends on where they are stationed. Because each part of the border has its own problems. Some want more helicopters. Some need a road along the border. Almost all want more sensors and cameras.
And absolutely none want a massive concrete wall. Because that would mean they could not see through it to prepare for border crossings.
ot using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration
"Illegal Immigration" has not been this low since the 1970s. Without a wall. It's almost like someone is shoveling bullshit at you to get you scared so you vote for them.
What do you think the second order effect of giving citizenship to the DACA kids would be? Isn't the path to citizenship for H-1B a better solution?
These questions are quite pointless, because the DACA kids are already here. Discussion of some ideal set-up while ignoring what exists today is really dumb.
As for your questions themselves, H-1B visas should be eliminated. If a company needs to import workers, there are permanent work visas that already exist. Might need to increase the cut-off for those visas to make up for the loss of H-1B visas. This, btw, makes the "path to citizenship" moot.
As for what effects the DACA kids getting citizenship: not much. They're already here. They're already working.
What do you think the effect of not actively discussing border security would be?
Congratulations on coming out of that coma. Border security has been under active discussion since the W administration, when a bipartisan bill passed to build walls where they actually make sense on the border. Please try to catch up.
Multiple migrant caravan waves, scheduling simultaneous mass crossing attempts across multiple states in order to overwhelm Border Patrol?
Guess what? Asylum seekers don't do this. Because federal law and treaty obligations require that we let them into the country while their claim is being investigated. Those caravans don't need to rush the border, so they don't actually do that. But it's great for fearmongering towards people like you who haven't been paying attention.
At what point do you think we need to enforce immigration laws?
My personal belief is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Someone who abandons everything to walk 2000 miles isn't going to spend the rest of their life on the couch. They're going to be massively productive members of society, and statistics bear this out - immigrants are massively successful in the US. Legal or not.
But my personal belief is not the law.
The law says those caravans get to come in. When attempting to claim we need to follow immigration laws, it's probably a good idea to not demand breaking immigration laws.
Nope. That would require a functional strong central government. And thanks to the massive piles of cash we send to the drug cartels, Mexico doesn't have that.
No, the problem is that we are in a trade war and we will get our asses handed to us if we don't stop squabbling over petty partisian bullshit and win it.
The Department of Commerce is funded.
The major parties are like the cockpit created from the average characteristics of all pilots that was so far from what was desirable for any actual individual that several people died trying to fly it.
Polling does not bear this out. There's about 20% Republican. About 20% Republican-leaning, 30% Democratic, 20% Democratic-leaning, and 10% "other", which includes centrists, communists, NAZIs, and so on.
Those "leaning" people always vote for their associated party, or they don't vote. They never cross party lines. So about 40% of the population is pretty happy with the Republican party. About 50% of the population is pretty happy with the Democratic party.
The Post-WWII Centrism was an artifact of the Southern Realignment. Southerners still called themselves "Democrats" because they hated Lincoln that much, but the parties had shifted so that they were de-facto Republicans. And until the Civil Rights act, our government was a conflicted mess of cross-party coalitions, which gave the appearance of centrism but it was really personal coalitions - one Senator would build a faction within the chamber and if appeased would bring a collection of votes.
Then the Civil Rights act passed. Southerners hated that more than Lincoln, and it was enough to change their registration.
Meanwhile, Northern Republicans who had been allied with Western Democrats suddenly found their party no longer fit. And they gradually became moderate Democrats.
The result is we've returned to the sort of ideological split our country has had since it was founded, with the exception of that post-WWII period. So, no, we're not going to have any more "Tip n Ronnie" moments anytime soon.
Ohhh you mean the big landslide taking it back movement that was supposed to sweep the house and senate in the publics outrage over Trump that had people like yourself scratching their heads and saying "at least we got the house".
So another problem we're having is awful media coverage of politics. The only people described the election like this are the morons trying to fill air time before the election actually ended.
and saying "at least we got the house"... barely. I haven't followed along since
And that's why you're wrong. The swing in the House was the largest since Watergate. Second largest since WWII. So yeah, it was a landslide.
It just took longer than the pundits wanted to count all the votes, so they decided it was a "disappointment" at +15 with more than 50 races still being counted. And then you stopped paying attention because you had been properly misinformed.
The Senate was forecast to end up +6 Republican. They lost 2 they were supposed to win easily, and the 4 they did pick up were much, much closer than anyone forecast. They only people talking about a Senate flip were, again, the morons trying to fill air time. Because they thought a Democratic Senate would create more drama for the reality TV show they want politics to be.
I guess I've been too busy being pissed about the shame voter report cards your billionaire supporters and party sent to neighborhoods they thought would vote for them alongside encouraging voting of people demographically likely to support the opposition that included an absentee ballot form that would disqualify them from actually being allowed to vote when it would be counted.
So, one county in North Carolina, where only the Republican party did this, is what happened all over the nation? By both parties? [Citation Required].
You are a perfect example of what's wrong with politics today. You stop paying attention when the pretty people go to commercial, leaving you utterly and completely uninformed. Just like those you decry want you to be.
And you want to blame those of us who actually keep paying attention for it.
Letsencrypt only encrypts the traffic. You need a real certificate authority for authentication.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives?
What gives is a wall only makes sense on part of our Southern border. Geography, geology and land ownership mean the other parts would be better covered by sensors, cameras, roads for CBP vehicles, funding for helicopters, and so on. There's already walls on the border where they make sense.
There's things like a very large river running along the border. You can't build a wall in the middle of it. At least if you want the wall to last. The river also floods regularly so you can't build the wall right next to the river, unless you want to rebuild that wall all the time. So now you have to build the wall a ways away from the river. We'd kinda like to not seize millions of acres from Americans and effectively give them to Mexico.
That ebil caravan full of brown people? They're seeking asylum. They go directly to ports of entry and present themselves....and they did just that. US law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while we investigate their claims....and the vast majority of the time their claims hold up to that investigation. It turns out people don't just abandon everything and walk 2000 miles on a lark. But since they're coming to ports-of-entry, a wall doesn't do shit.
Drugs? Those are being smuggled through ports of entry, tunnels, boats and aircraft according to the DEA and CBP. Again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Terrorists? CBP says those arrive via airports or our Northern border. So again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Y'all used to think the government spending money on things that don't do shit was a bad thing.
Pro-tip 1: The budget bill that passed the Senate before Christmas passed 93-6. 93 is a little bit more than 60.
Pro-tip 2: Budget bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority via Reconciliation.
The REPUBLICAN house actually passed a 5.7 Billion Wall bill before christmas
The House passed a bill without a wall. The Senate amended that bill, and passed it 93-6. Trump said he would sign this bill. It needed to go back to the House because of the amendments.
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and others started attacking Trump for agreeing to sign the bill. Trump suddenly decided the wall must be in the bill.
Pelosi passed the same bill that passed the Senate 93-6. She has also passed bills for individual parts of the government, taken verbatim from that 93-6 bill.
Also, in 2017, Pelosi and Shumer offered to pay for the entire wall ($27B). In return, they wanted visas and a path to citizenship for the DACA kids. If Republicans really wanted that wall, wouldn't that have been a very good deal to take? Especially since Trump was forbidden by the courts from deporting the DACA kids anyway.
This is entirely on the Republicans and their utter inability to govern. And Trump's fear of Ann Coulter.
In the words of Michael Knowles "Begs the question why do non-essential government services even exist."
Essential government services keep you from dying today. Non-essential government services keep you from dying next week.