Here's a hint for you: Who bought the Windows copy in an OEM machine?
If you said the consumer, you'd be wrong. It's the OEM that bought that copy and got a deep discount price for buying so many copies of it- and they bundle that discounted price as part of their sale price. The bulk of consumers out there are customers for Dell, HP, etc. not Microsoft.
The only people that are direct customers to Microsoft are the DIY crowd that bought MS stuff explicitly- or the people buying upgrades storefront.
They're basing it off of the online play results indicating at least 10% of the people might have been using an infringed copy. The reality is- you're going to find people committing "piracy" on a given title.
However, the leap they make that the infringements were costing them sales is tenuous at best. And the further leap that DRM will somehow make the sales better is even more so.
In any group of infringers there will be a mix of population of people that can't afford the game and those that will never buy period (I called them "won't"s in an earlier post...)
The "can't' crowd is a prospective customer- they would buy if they had the ability to do so, because of lack of credit card in the case of online sales, or due to things like pure lack of funds. You may or may not get into a position to have them be their customer. 2DBoy did that with me and I paid them what I thought was a fair price and what I had to spare ($15...as much to reward them as to buy the game. They didn't have to do this or make the Linux version after all.). Had they lowered the price to $10 or even $5, the result would have been the same. I was a "can't" because of budget concerns- there's other reasons and they're all over the place on the spectrum of things. You want to try to convert those to sales if possible.
The "won't" crowd is not, nor will they ever be your customer. The people that paid one cent are really, if they're honest with themselves", part of the "won't" crowd. They didn't pay even remotely a fair price for the game. The "won't" crowd will almost always pirate the game, either because they don't believe in paying for any of it, don't believe your game is worth any real money (but yet they made an illegal copy thereof and are playing it...go figure...), or similar. No amount of DRM will preclude them taking what they feel they're due from you if they want the title bad enough. If it is barring them, there's a very, very good chance that your game is not fun enough to rate cracking it. If it's not that much fun, you might want to re-think your thinking on why it's not selling better as it's not infringements that are your problem.
Every developer out there seems to think DRM will "get them more sales" at least at some point in time. Some then realize this fact: The people pirating aren't "lost sales"- they're people who either can't/won't buy your product for varying reasons.
You want to win the "can't" crowd back if possible- you're never going to convince the "won't" crowd ever. The former is a possible customer, the latter is not and will not be.
DRM might slow the infringers down (it's been proven that pretty much every DRM solution to date has been circumvented within weeks of the release of the title...and that initial crush in the case of many titles won't be where you make your money if you're download only/mostly...) but it will pretty much never stop them. Ask Microsoft how nifty their DRM has been on the 360. DRM won't turn the "can't" crowd to be your customer- it won't put money in their pockets to buy. DRM won't turn the "won't" crowd into your customers- if they want your game badly enough, they will take it whether you have DRM on the title or not. If it's such that they won't bother, you've failed at making a fun game.
DRM is a folly wherever it gets used. It's use is based off of a flawed premise out of the gate.
Actually, they owned up to the Mythbusted assessment maybe being wrong in their discussion threads- they didn't do a good enough measure of anything, which happens from time to time over there at their shop.
Thank you. The concept you just gave out seems to elude many, apparently including the people at CARB. (Never mind that in many cases, the "answers" CARB comes up with actually make the problems they're trying to fix worse- or produce worse problems...)
I would rather have explicit standards for what gets emitted and what fuel consumption is required, than specifying silly things like the stuff we're discussing here- which wouldn't amount to more than 1-2 miles per gallon, if that much. In my Ranger pickup, I get 20-22 MPG depending on fuel quality. Turning on/off the AC matters actually very little in the fuel consumption- Ethanol percentage seems to matter more. The higher it is, the lower the fuel mileage seems to be. So, I would question whether this little proposed mandate even matters in the great scheme of things, contrary to the claims it matters. Yes, you'll use less fuel, but the thing is that it's nothing in comparison to the drivetrain's consumption of it.
The problem is that you're trimming the fuel consumption there when there's other places to go looking for wastage that'd be more effective. But, noo...we're going to worry about a roughly 2-5Hp drag on the engine that's not on all the time with any of the class of cars they're doing it to in the first place.
There's about a 40% performance delta between the ARM11 and the A8 cores, apples to apples type comparisons. They're not as similar as you're implying there- and comparing clock-to-clock like the GP poster did isn't going to get you far.
Comparing the two in this case, you're talking about a neck-and-neck race if you're using the same instruction mix (and not the NEON instructions- which wouldn't likely BE there on the ARM11...) and consuming less power doing it in the case of the A8 based SOC. And that doesn't get into what the rest of the stuff bundled with the SoC does for you.
You fell for an old fallacy. Clock speeds don't compare save within the same CPU arch/microarch- and the ARM11 isn't the same thing as the Cortex-A8 save in supported core instructions.
In this case, you're comparing apples to grapefruits.
Some instruction mixes will run at two times the rate on an OMAP3 when compared to an ARM11 SoC. With cache considerations, ARM states that the Cortex-A8 will be roughly 40% faster on instruction throughput when compared with a comparably clocked ARM11. And this doesn't get into the coprocessors supported...
So, at 600MHz, that's roughly equivalent to a 820MHz ARM11 with lower power consumption overall. The Moment's going to be roughly equivalent to the the Droid in just raw CPU- but it will have a higher power consumption. It remains to be seen if they've got a DSP for audio/video processing that's in the same class- and it remains to be seen if they've got GPU support as good or better than the OMAP3.
On a CT scan, eight times the normal dose for one translates into a rather increased chance for cancer... When you start losing hair, you might want to think about that sort of thing being more than a bit too high. And 200 patients where roughly 80% of them had that symptom... Not good.
If you read the history...about half of the deaths were due to one-shot incidents where the patent received a lethal dose out of the machine on the first treatment. To be sure, some of the incidents should have been dealt with differently as you indicate- but what about the Tyler, TX incidents, for example?
Yes... Medical Staff are a big part. But so was the manufacturer of the device- had you read all the evasiveness on AECL's part when the problems started coming in. In the case of the first incident, there WAS an inquiry into what might have been happening but didn't come to light until Tyler's ill-fated mishaps occurred.
Don't forget to NOT allow them to just restart either. The moment the threshold is hit on one or more of the safety interlock systems the whole thing becomes unusable until a full system reset- and then make it difficult to just simply push a button to do that. In the case of several incidents of the Therac-25 overdoses, it was due to the operators of the machine looking at their screen and seeing a low/no dose and punching "proceed" even though the patent got 4k, 8k, 10k or more rads dose on the first "screwup".
The 20 didn't 'work fine' it just wasn't as hazardous because you couldn't configure the damn thing to commit the brutally high doses the 25 would blithely commit for you if you fell through the cracks on their "software interlocks". It had the same damn problems within it's design. That isn't really acceptable either. You shouldn't rely on any one single safeguard saving your backside on something of this nature. Seriously.
In theory, you can have a keyboard... Add another zone. Only drawback would be that the keyboard would be a re-learning experience for touch typists.
As for the session management... You've managed to side-step the problem, not "fix" it as you've implied. I've done it with multiple desktops and a widescreen monitor. However, you and I (and others like us...) have not really fixed the issue as it's one within the design of the current paradigm and will eventually show it's ugly head even with our individual workarounds. As to whether or not his idea's "better", I couldn't say- I will say it's different, and appears to mesh well with the concept he's come up with. Whether it's workable or not would have to have someone actually implement 10/GUI and actually use it. I'm thinking it would be definitely a workable thing with a handheld and it's multi-touch interface, though.
Actually, he's described enough of the framework in the video to do it fairly easily with the stuff that's currently available.
Seriously. You'd use a capacitive or similar touch-pad and do multi-touch against that backdrop as an input source. All one has to do is apply something along the lines of this and modify it to understand his local/global edges of the touchpad and then implement his window management system on top of one of the lightweight WMs out there as a fork.
However, while that would require a smallish amount of work, one has to wonder if he's got patents applied for or a copyright on the "look and feel" that he'll let it all happen and then submarine the whole thing when it becomes "the big thing". If he's letting anyone have access to it, or letting FOSS projects have it under FOSS terms and proprietary under similar RAND terms, then I'd say let's see how the idea actually works. If not, I'd say give it a pass. It's interesting enough to evaluate if he's barking up the right tree or not- but only if he's not merely setting himself up as gatekeeper so he can extract rents on a potentially useful interface paradigm.
Unlikely to know is more like verging on impossible. Pretty much everyone will be unable to get any more than the pin on a pin+PRNG keyfob passcode, since the passcode changes every minute and unless you know the algorithm and the seed used for the account, it's vanishingly possible to "know" the right combo.
As a result, it's actually effectively "what you have". Biometrics would be another "what you have" but since they can be fooled in many cases, it's not something I'd want to rely upon at this time.
A "little" two-factor authentication that would work would be a PRNG key issued to the customer and a pin/PRNG passcode would go a long, long way to handling the issue. It'd not be bulletproof, but it's something that actually approximates real security.
Unfortunately, they implement things that just simply won't work as second factors, like silly bitmap pics, putting cookies on the browser so they can "recognize" the PC you're on, and the like. Little more than security theater- and not able to protect you any better than the userid/password security does now.
However, until they can actually come up with something along those lines, the suggestions are pretty sound- and comments about popularity are really not good enough to say to not do it. You know, some of those things about Linux that people "don't like" or "make it hard" happen to be some of the things that make it resilient to some of this BS in the first place. Real security isn't something you can "make easy" under all circumstances. The moment you make it "easy", it reduces or removes the effectiveness thereof. Unfortunately, while it's a good rule of thumb, many IT departments take that a bit far and try to make password security "more secure" and actually diminish it by way of making things TOO difficult.
Heh... Considering that Linux users using WINE were tagged as breaking the rules, even though they weren't, I'd say that creating an account for each style of game accordingly might not be a bad idea.
But people keep bringing the subject up for reasons I'll avoid commenting on because while I've got a good theory on the subject, I don't have sufficient backing in facts to support the supposition in question.
It's no different than what's passing for evidence of "sexism" in FOSS right at the moment. It's all cherry picked there too- and we're pillorying the people that're challenging it as being "in denial" or "misogynistic", with little to no basis for the remarks. Seriously.
Unfortunately, for my story, the "cherry picked quotes" I put forward seem to permeate throughout most of my encounters with alleged Feminsts. While I offer anecdotes, my personal experience matches what I've posted above- and I can only offer what I've seen, experienced or read on the subject over the years. Sure, Solanas was a seriously disturbed individual. How can you relate the remark from Marylin French as being any less disturbed...or the changing of the name "woman" to "womyn", "because 'woman' has 'man' in it's making" as anything but disturbed?
I'd say that the Feminst crowd need to clean house a bit and actively discourage that sort of conduct (which is NOT happening...believe me it's not...) before they have any sort of room to claim "sexist" on other things.
Feminists are people that place women over men (to the point of coming up with silly names for their gender because it has "man" in the proper name for their language, never once considering the etymology...), claiming they seek equal rights for Women. Before you accost me on that assessment, folks, just look at what the luminaries of the Modern Feminist movement have said about things...
Most people, even many who would call themselves "feminists" would be horrified if someone said things like "All men are rapists that's all they are" or things like "As humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy."
However, that's what gets said all the time by people that the Feminist crowd hold near and dear to their hearts. And the parts of that crowd that sees nothing wrong with that sort of statement or conduct along those lines are typically the ones that raise the rallying cry of "sexist" or similar in the public discourse.
"Equalist" I believe in and stand by, as a male- when it makes sense. But only then. Anything else is going off of feelings and not facts. And while I do use my feelings as a guide, I don't let them rule me. Letting your feelings rule you tends to be a symptom of several mental illnesses that're among the more severe ones. Unfortunately, if you believe the figures they throw about these days on those illnesses, at least as many as 1 in 10 are afflicted by them.
Why don't you just ditch the "feminist" title for any of it?
These days, the term "feminist" has come correlated with this sort of thinking and actions that everyone considers deplorable- but give the feminist the out because we're all about giving women "equal" rights and they've obviously been oppressed by men all these years.
I can give as many examples, if not more, of sexism (and worse...) coming from the people considered to be the luminaries in the Feminist movement. As it stands, I don't consider things like "All men are rapists and that's all they are," as being rational, sane, or anything BUT sexist in and of itself. I fear there's vastly more examples of this sort of thing from the crowd claiming it- projection, really.
It's not that we're more sensitive to one or the other as you try to make the correlation to in your post. It's that you've got people willing to make accusations at the drop of a hat like "sexism" and then out the other side of their mouth make statements like Marilyn French made there in the "All men..." remark.
No, I don't consider the crass crap pulled on that talk at GoCaRuCo acceptable- it's very definitely sexist. But one wonders if it's purely sexist or an inappropriate response to an equally inappropriate batch of claims about "sexism" in FOSS to begin with.
Just look at my post and Google for other sterling examples of Feminism and you'll see a LOT of sexism- and claiming it's just a pendulum swing is giving it more credit than it honestly deserves.
Yes, there was sexist stuff in the past. Most men have actually bent over backwards to correct the real problems and many of the perceived problems- only to get more and more accusations and more and more heinous things sought for by the crowd claiming to be "Feminist".
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a hint for you: Who bought the Windows copy in an OEM machine?
If you said the consumer, you'd be wrong. It's the OEM that bought that copy and got a deep discount price for buying so many copies of it- and they bundle that discounted price as part of their sale price. The bulk of consumers out there are customers for Dell, HP, etc. not Microsoft.
The only people that are direct customers to Microsoft are the DIY crowd that bought MS stuff explicitly- or the people buying upgrades storefront.
They're basing it off of the online play results indicating at least 10% of the people might have been using an infringed copy. The reality is- you're going to find people committing "piracy" on a given title.
However, the leap they make that the infringements were costing them sales is tenuous at best. And the further leap that DRM will somehow make the sales better is even more so.
In any group of infringers there will be a mix of population of people that can't afford the game and those that will never buy period (I called them "won't"s in an earlier post...)
The "can't' crowd is a prospective customer- they would buy if they had the ability to do so, because of lack of credit card in the case of online sales, or due to things like pure lack of funds. You may or may not get into a position to have them be their customer. 2DBoy did that with me and I paid them what I thought was a fair price and what I had to spare ($15...as much to reward them as to buy the game. They didn't have to do this or make the Linux version after all.). Had they lowered the price to $10 or even $5, the result would have been the same. I was a "can't" because of budget concerns- there's other reasons and they're all over the place on the spectrum of things. You want to try to convert those to sales if possible.
The "won't" crowd is not, nor will they ever be your customer. The people that paid one cent are really, if they're honest with themselves", part of the "won't" crowd. They didn't pay even remotely a fair price for the game. The "won't" crowd will almost always pirate the game, either because they don't believe in paying for any of it, don't believe your game is worth any real money (but yet they made an illegal copy thereof and are playing it...go figure...), or similar. No amount of DRM will preclude them taking what they feel they're due from you if they want the title bad enough. If it is barring them, there's a very, very good chance that your game is not fun enough to rate cracking it. If it's not that much fun, you might want to re-think your thinking on why it's not selling better as it's not infringements that are your problem.
Every developer out there seems to think DRM will "get them more sales" at least at some point in time. Some then realize this fact: The people pirating aren't "lost sales"- they're people who either can't/won't buy your product for varying reasons.
You want to win the "can't" crowd back if possible- you're never going to convince the "won't" crowd ever. The former is a possible customer, the latter is not and will not be.
DRM might slow the infringers down (it's been proven that pretty much every DRM solution to date has been circumvented within weeks of the release of the title...and that initial crush in the case of many titles won't be where you make your money if you're download only/mostly...) but it will pretty much never stop them. Ask Microsoft how nifty their DRM has been on the 360. DRM won't turn the "can't" crowd to be your customer- it won't put money in their pockets to buy. DRM won't turn the "won't" crowd into your customers- if they want your game badly enough, they will take it whether you have DRM on the title or not. If it's such that they won't bother, you've failed at making a fun game.
DRM is a folly wherever it gets used. It's use is based off of a flawed premise out of the gate.
Actually, they owned up to the Mythbusted assessment maybe being wrong in their discussion threads- they didn't do a good enough measure of anything, which happens from time to time over there at their shop.
Uh... It's a constrained space. Unless it blocks ALL light, etc. it's going to get hot in the sun- it'll just take longer without the AC running.
Thank you. The concept you just gave out seems to elude many, apparently including the people at CARB. (Never mind that in many cases, the "answers" CARB comes up with actually make the problems they're trying to fix worse- or produce worse problems...)
I would rather have explicit standards for what gets emitted and what fuel consumption is required, than specifying silly things like the stuff we're discussing here- which wouldn't amount to more than 1-2 miles per gallon, if that much. In my Ranger pickup, I get 20-22 MPG depending on fuel quality. Turning on/off the AC matters actually very little in the fuel consumption- Ethanol percentage seems to matter more. The higher it is, the lower the fuel mileage seems to be. So, I would question whether this little proposed mandate even matters in the great scheme of things, contrary to the claims it matters. Yes, you'll use less fuel, but the thing is that it's nothing in comparison to the drivetrain's consumption of it.
The problem is that you're trimming the fuel consumption there when there's other places to go looking for wastage that'd be more effective. But, noo...we're going to worry about a roughly 2-5Hp drag on the engine that's not on all the time with any of the class of cars they're doing it to in the first place.
Uh...no.
There's about a 40% performance delta between the ARM11 and the A8 cores, apples to apples type comparisons. They're not as similar as you're implying there- and comparing clock-to-clock like the GP poster did isn't going to get you far.
Comparing the two in this case, you're talking about a neck-and-neck race if you're using the same instruction mix (and not the NEON instructions- which wouldn't likely BE there on the ARM11...) and consuming less power doing it in the case of the A8 based SOC. And that doesn't get into what the rest of the stuff bundled with the SoC does for you.
You fell for an old fallacy. Clock speeds don't compare save within the same CPU arch/microarch- and the ARM11 isn't the same thing as the Cortex-A8 save in supported core instructions.
In this case, you're comparing apples to grapefruits.
Some instruction mixes will run at two times the rate on an OMAP3 when compared to an ARM11 SoC. With cache considerations, ARM states that the Cortex-A8 will be roughly 40% faster on instruction throughput when compared with a comparably clocked ARM11. And this doesn't get into the coprocessors supported...
So, at 600MHz, that's roughly equivalent to a 820MHz ARM11 with lower power consumption overall. The Moment's going to be roughly equivalent to the the Droid in just raw CPU- but it will have a higher power consumption. It remains to be seen if they've got a DSP for audio/video processing that's in the same class- and it remains to be seen if they've got GPU support as good or better than the OMAP3.
On a CT scan, eight times the normal dose for one translates into a rather increased chance for cancer... When you start losing hair, you might want to think about that sort of thing being more than a bit too high. And 200 patients where roughly 80% of them had that symptom... Not good.
If you read the history...about half of the deaths were due to one-shot incidents where the patent received a lethal dose out of the machine on the first treatment. To be sure, some of the incidents should have been dealt with differently as you indicate- but what about the Tyler, TX incidents, for example?
Yes... Medical Staff are a big part. But so was the manufacturer of the device- had you read all the evasiveness on AECL's part when the problems started coming in. In the case of the first incident, there WAS an inquiry into what might have been happening but didn't come to light until Tyler's ill-fated mishaps occurred.
Don't forget to NOT allow them to just restart either. The moment the threshold is hit on one or more of the safety interlock systems the whole thing becomes unusable until a full system reset- and then make it difficult to just simply push a button to do that. In the case of several incidents of the Therac-25 overdoses, it was due to the operators of the machine looking at their screen and seeing a low/no dose and punching "proceed" even though the patent got 4k, 8k, 10k or more rads dose on the first "screwup".
The 20 didn't 'work fine' it just wasn't as hazardous because you couldn't configure the damn thing to commit the brutally high doses the 25 would blithely commit for you if you fell through the cracks on their "software interlocks". It had the same damn problems within it's design. That isn't really acceptable either. You shouldn't rely on any one single safeguard saving your backside on something of this nature. Seriously.
In truth, that's not overly a bad idea- even if you were being facetious.
In theory, you can have a keyboard... Add another zone. Only drawback would be that the keyboard would be a re-learning experience for touch typists.
As for the session management... You've managed to side-step the problem, not "fix" it as you've implied. I've done it with multiple desktops and a widescreen monitor. However, you and I (and others like us...) have not really fixed the issue as it's one within the design of the current paradigm and will eventually show it's ugly head even with our individual workarounds. As to whether or not his idea's "better", I couldn't say- I will say it's different, and appears to mesh well with the concept he's come up with. Whether it's workable or not would have to have someone actually implement 10/GUI and actually use it. I'm thinking it would be definitely a workable thing with a handheld and it's multi-touch interface, though.
Actually, he's described enough of the framework in the video to do it fairly easily with the stuff that's currently available.
Seriously. You'd use a capacitive or similar touch-pad and do multi-touch against that backdrop as an input source. All one has to do is apply something along the lines of this and modify it to understand his local/global edges of the touchpad and then implement his window management system on top of one of the lightweight WMs out there as a fork.
However, while that would require a smallish amount of work, one has to wonder if he's got patents applied for or a copyright on the "look and feel" that he'll let it all happen and then submarine the whole thing when it becomes "the big thing". If he's letting anyone have access to it, or letting FOSS projects have it under FOSS terms and proprietary under similar RAND terms, then I'd say let's see how the idea actually works. If not, I'd say give it a pass. It's interesting enough to evaluate if he's barking up the right tree or not- but only if he's not merely setting himself up as gatekeeper so he can extract rents on a potentially useful interface paradigm.
Unlikely to know is more like verging on impossible. Pretty much everyone will be unable to get any more than the pin on a pin+PRNG keyfob passcode, since the passcode changes every minute and unless you know the algorithm and the seed used for the account, it's vanishingly possible to "know" the right combo.
As a result, it's actually effectively "what you have". Biometrics would be another "what you have" but since they can be fooled in many cases, it's not something I'd want to rely upon at this time.
A "little" two-factor authentication that would work would be a PRNG key issued to the customer and a pin/PRNG passcode would go a long, long way to handling the issue. It'd not be bulletproof, but it's something that actually approximates real security.
Unfortunately, they implement things that just simply won't work as second factors, like silly bitmap pics, putting cookies on the browser so they can "recognize" the PC you're on, and the like. Little more than security theater- and not able to protect you any better than the userid/password security does now.
However, until they can actually come up with something along those lines, the suggestions are pretty sound- and comments about popularity are really not good enough to say to not do it. You know, some of those things about Linux that people "don't like" or "make it hard" happen to be some of the things that make it resilient to some of this BS in the first place. Real security isn't something you can "make easy" under all circumstances. The moment you make it "easy", it reduces or removes the effectiveness thereof. Unfortunately, while it's a good rule of thumb, many IT departments take that a bit far and try to make password security "more secure" and actually diminish it by way of making things TOO difficult.
Heh... Considering that Linux users using WINE were tagged as breaking the rules, even though they weren't, I'd say that creating an account for each style of game accordingly might not be a bad idea.
I'm asking the same thing myself, honestly...
But people keep bringing the subject up for reasons I'll avoid commenting on because while I've got a good theory on the subject, I don't have sufficient backing in facts to support the supposition in question.
It's no different than what's passing for evidence of "sexism" in FOSS right at the moment. It's all cherry picked there too- and we're pillorying the people that're challenging it as being "in denial" or "misogynistic", with little to no basis for the remarks. Seriously.
Unfortunately, for my story, the "cherry picked quotes" I put forward seem to permeate throughout most of my encounters with alleged Feminsts. While I offer anecdotes, my personal experience matches what I've posted above- and I can only offer what I've seen, experienced or read on the subject over the years. Sure, Solanas was a seriously disturbed individual. How can you relate the remark from Marylin French as being any less disturbed...or the changing of the name "woman" to "womyn", "because 'woman' has 'man' in it's making" as anything but disturbed?
I'd say that the Feminst crowd need to clean house a bit and actively discourage that sort of conduct (which is NOT happening...believe me it's not...) before they have any sort of room to claim "sexist" on other things.
Feminists are people that place women over men (to the point of coming up with silly names for their gender because it has "man" in the proper name for their language, never once considering the etymology...), claiming they seek equal rights for Women. Before you accost me on that assessment, folks, just look at what the luminaries of the Modern Feminist movement have said about things...
Most people, even many who would call themselves "feminists" would be horrified if someone said things like "All men are rapists that's all they are" or things like "As humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy."
However, that's what gets said all the time by people that the Feminist crowd hold near and dear to their hearts. And the parts of that crowd that sees nothing wrong with that sort of statement or conduct along those lines are typically the ones that raise the rallying cry of "sexist" or similar in the public discourse.
"Equalist" I believe in and stand by, as a male- when it makes sense. But only then. Anything else is going off of feelings and not facts. And while I do use my feelings as a guide, I don't let them rule me. Letting your feelings rule you tends to be a symptom of several mental illnesses that're among the more severe ones. Unfortunately, if you believe the figures they throw about these days on those illnesses, at least as many as 1 in 10 are afflicted by them.
Why don't you just ditch the "feminist" title for any of it?
These days, the term "feminist" has come correlated with this sort of thinking and actions that everyone considers deplorable- but give the feminist the out because we're all about giving women "equal" rights and they've obviously been oppressed by men all these years.
I can give as many examples, if not more, of sexism (and worse ...) coming from the people considered to be the luminaries in the Feminist movement. As it stands, I don't consider things like "All men are rapists and that's all they are," as being rational, sane, or anything BUT sexist in and of itself. I fear there's vastly more examples of this sort of thing from the crowd claiming it- projection, really.
It's not that we're more sensitive to one or the other as you try to make the correlation to in your post. It's that you've got people willing to make accusations at the drop of a hat like "sexism" and then out the other side of their mouth make statements like Marilyn French made there in the "All men..." remark.
No, I don't consider the crass crap pulled on that talk at GoCaRuCo acceptable- it's very definitely sexist. But one wonders if it's purely sexist or an inappropriate response to an equally inappropriate batch of claims about "sexism" in FOSS to begin with.
Just look at my post and Google for other sterling examples of Feminism and you'll see a LOT of sexism- and claiming it's just a pendulum swing is giving it more credit than it honestly deserves.
Yes, there was sexist stuff in the past. Most men have actually bent over backwards to correct the real problems and many of the perceived problems- only to get more and more accusations and more and more heinous things sought for by the crowd claiming to be "Feminist".