Please elaborate. Seriously. I've seen this charge over and over again and have never seen any evidence for it except an ex-boyfriend's crazy screed.
As you say, the timeline is the single most important piece of information, and my pure contempt for the #GG movement has been fueled mainly by the fact that the timeline seems to be:
1) Dev writes game 2) Dev gets game "reviewed" (a sentence or two) 3) Dev starts dating reviewer months later 4) Dev is accused of "lack of ethics and morals"
I don't understand how 4 follows from 3, and all of the hate directed her way seems to stem from that faulty connection. So if you can show how I'm wrong, maybe you'll start to convince me this is actually about ethics in journalism.
My apologies. Clearly, I can't speak for everyone, so my "No one's alleged..." statement was hyperbole.
I meant it only to be taken in the context of this thread, in response to I find it hilarious that someone can believe in a vast conspiracy of gamers to kill these women, then try to trot out the conspiracy nut card..
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I do not believe in a "conspiracy of gamers to kill these women", nor do I believe anyone in a "conspiracy of media to cover up/distract from Gamergate". I guess, in conclusion, I think anyone alleging any kind of conspiracy here is a nut. The whole scenario appears to me as an organic situation in which everyone reacted according to their existing beliefs, not because of any collusion.
No one's alleged a "vast conspiracy of gamers" - just a bunch of assholes playing pile-on on the internet, one or more of which have gone too far. Does that really seem like a farfetched scenario to you?
And I haven't "believed the press" at all, because I haven't read the press. I've just listened to each side speak in their own words. I've heard a lot of hatred spewed towards LWs 1, 2, and 3 - just read this thread. What I haven't heard in a hundred posts is a single (yes, single) violation of "journalistic integrity". I can't even tell what the hell #GG is about. Assuming #GG'ers have dropped any consideration of Gjoni's allegations (as well they should), the whole movement seems to be about...nothing.
By this measure, I'm certain that Nye won. Anyone who was over 18 and watching the debate has probably had their minds made up for a long time. But I imagine there were a ton of religious parents that sat their kids down to watch the debate. Nye's arguments had a chance of swaying kids who may not have been exposed to a scientific view before, and his arguments had the benefit of being based on observable evidence that anyone could at least understand. Ham's arguments are based on personal beliefs and an ancient book. He had little chance of convincing anyone not already thoroughly indoctrinated.
Not many people say it's impossible, just that there's no evidence.
There's no more reason to believe in a biblical God than Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because someone says something happened doesn't make it true - even if science could theoretically model it.
Exactly right, and there's an even more compelling reason. Consciousness is hard and motivation is hard. I'm convinced it's easier to create a neural interface than write a truly intelligent program, so all of that superintelligence will simply be add-ons to your average human, driven by a human, with your normal human feedback loop (physical sensations, emotional needs, etc).
Why are we afraid of AI? Because it can sift through thousands of computers near-instantaneously and collect the data it needs? Because it can control physical machinery halfway across the world?
We can do all of that. And with the right upgrades (which, again, are probably easier than inventing a conscious machine), we'll be able to do it as fast and as well as any machine.
Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin? You wouldn't be able to follow someone around while they're in public, yelling insults, all day, every day. Eventually you'd get a restraining order, and if you violated it, you'd go to jail. At some point "saying what I don't like" becomes more damaging to my quality of life than a punch in the face.
And tailgating is in the eye of the beholder. The type of person who would do 30 in the fast lane is exactly the type of person who would complain about the "tailgaters" hovering 100 feet back.
Wow. Couldn't even bother to RTFS, could you? It clearly states that this device "increases the sun's radiation by 2,000 times", so feel free to rerun your calculations with 2.6MW.
Unfortunately, the summary doesn't state whether the increase occurs just around the device or for the entire sun. Just to be safe you might want to buy 3-foot lead sunscreen.
I know! The only thing more annoying than those bozos are the other bozos who preemptively call them out, as if their whiny comment will be of use to anyone.
Fortunately, I haven't seen any of the absolute worst scum, who feel the need to point out the faults of the other two bozos. Complains about complainers are the lowest form of comment.
Because every phenomenon has the same effect when it doesn't exist, and only differentiates itself from other things when it does exist. So to explain lightning, you start from a default position that encompasses all possible explanations - "One or more phenomena exist and are causing this, and all others do not exist, or do not create lightning", and then try to narrow down which of the infinite imaginable phenomena are the ones causing lightning.
If "no X" weren't the default position (not just gods), then to be fair we'd have to assume that everything imaginable exists. And...well...Louis CK puts it far better than I could.
Can someone help me out? What's the name for when someone acts like a crazy supporter of their opponents to make their opponents look crazy? (you can tell that's what's up because the only person named in the post is the right-wing boogeyman-of-the-day, Elizabeth Warren)
Anyone who is proficient in programming shouldn't have a problem picking up a book (or website) and learning a new langauge, API, etc. in a weekend or two.
This is true as long as you're hacking something together. If you're expected to work with other developers and create something maintainable, you've got to learn a million little standards, conventions, quirks, tricks, and optional 3rd-party libraries.
Picking up the basics is easy, but in my experience it takes a couple of years before one can truly be comfortable with a new language.
Absolutely not. There are, unfortunately, very good reasons to be skeptical. A lot of well-meaning dumbasses have ruined it for legitimate victims.
The original post wasn't just skeptical though, it was accusatory. Even worse, it used the "just asking questions" style of accusation, which (personal judgment here) is a very trollish style of debate.
Me? I'm neurotic. I'd play on my phone and idly click the "Screenshot" button every few seconds until I was sure there wouldn't be more, then post the first one with all the posts. Maybe that's why I don't treat it as a smoking gun.
I'm a bit sad to say I'm sitting at about 50/50 on this. That said, I definitely wouldn't state anything one way or the other until all the facts are in....and probably not afterwards either - I'm just not that invested:)
That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image
* The account was created just to make the offensive tweets - granted.
* Screencap taken 12 seconds after the last tweet - The image gives no indication how many tweets were made in total. If this were in the middle of a stream of tweets, then any screenshot would have been taken soon after the "last tweet".
* No Search, no login - the url could be typed, instant messaged, or searched from Google. As another poster said, somone could see the tweet on their phone, want a screencap, and type the URL into a computer
* Who screencapped this??? - I don't know???
* Perfect spelling/capitalization - I didn't address this because I didn't think it needed to be addressed. If I were to go rogue, it would definitely be at this quality and pace. Just because someone's a troll doesn't mean they lack typing/thinking skills.
Or almost as if someone was tweeting constantly (if the screenshot were taken 30 seconds earlier, it *also* would have been 12 seconds after the last tweet).
Almost as if someone were sent a link while they weren't logged in to twitter, and took a screenshot.
Now, nothing's impossible, but you'll need a hell of a lot more evidence to show this was staged. And speaking with such certainty based on such flimsy evidence just makes you look like another troll.
I think you're reading the wrong message. With a bit more context:
If nothing else, that very fact should give one pause. Fundamental changes in the structure of most Linux distributions should not be met with such fervent opposition.
I read that as an argument against systemd. Something like "Fundamental changes will happen in any complex system, but when those changes are positive, they will not be met with such fervent opposition".
I know, how could anyone make a statement as ridiculously inconsistent as "I don't like this one system administered by this group over here, and would like a very different system to be put in place by that group over there"?
If the exact same energy is converted from mass->light->mass again, in the exact same form (same electron spins, etc), then at what point was it destroyed? E=mc^2, which tells us that light and matter are just two different forms of the same phenomenon (or, at least, *might*, which is good enough for a hypothetical argument).
What about the simple replacement of atoms in your body from year to year. If 50% of the atoms in your body have been replaced, have "you" been destroyed and recreated?
Slashdot Mirror
ZQ's lack of ethics and morals
Please elaborate. Seriously. I've seen this charge over and over again and have never seen any evidence for it except an ex-boyfriend's crazy screed.
As you say, the timeline is the single most important piece of information, and my pure contempt for the #GG movement has been fueled mainly by the fact that the timeline seems to be:
1) Dev writes game
2) Dev gets game "reviewed" (a sentence or two)
3) Dev starts dating reviewer months later
4) Dev is accused of "lack of ethics and morals"
I don't understand how 4 follows from 3, and all of the hate directed her way seems to stem from that faulty connection. So if you can show how I'm wrong, maybe you'll start to convince me this is actually about ethics in journalism.
My apologies. Clearly, I can't speak for everyone, so my "No one's alleged..." statement was hyperbole.
I meant it only to be taken in the context of this thread, in response to I find it hilarious that someone can believe in a vast conspiracy of gamers to kill these women, then try to trot out the conspiracy nut card..
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I do not believe in a "conspiracy of gamers to kill these women", nor do I believe anyone in a "conspiracy of media to cover up/distract from Gamergate". I guess, in conclusion, I think anyone alleging any kind of conspiracy here is a nut. The whole scenario appears to me as an organic situation in which everyone reacted according to their existing beliefs, not because of any collusion.
No one's alleged a "vast conspiracy of gamers" - just a bunch of assholes playing pile-on on the internet, one or more of which have gone too far. Does that really seem like a farfetched scenario to you?
And I haven't "believed the press" at all, because I haven't read the press. I've just listened to each side speak in their own words. I've heard a lot of hatred spewed towards LWs 1, 2, and 3 - just read this thread. What I haven't heard in a hundred posts is a single (yes, single) violation of "journalistic integrity". I can't even tell what the hell #GG is about. Assuming #GG'ers have dropped any consideration of Gjoni's allegations (as well they should), the whole movement seems to be about...nothing.
Again, I'm talking about the ones in the debate
Whoops - I missed your original point. My bad.
there's not really anything to win.
I still disagree. The point of a (public) debate isn't to convince your opponent, it's to convince the audience.
By this measure, I'm certain that Nye won. Anyone who was over 18 and watching the debate has probably had their minds made up for a long time. But I imagine there were a ton of religious parents that sat their kids down to watch the debate. Nye's arguments had a chance of swaying kids who may not have been exposed to a scientific view before, and his arguments had the benefit of being based on observable evidence that anyone could at least understand. Ham's arguments are based on personal beliefs and an ancient book. He had little chance of convincing anyone not already thoroughly indoctrinated.
Not many people say it's impossible, just that there's no evidence.
There's no more reason to believe in a biblical God than Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because someone says something happened doesn't make it true - even if science could theoretically model it.
Exactly right, and there's an even more compelling reason. Consciousness is hard and motivation is hard. I'm convinced it's easier to create a neural interface than write a truly intelligent program, so all of that superintelligence will simply be add-ons to your average human, driven by a human, with your normal human feedback loop (physical sensations, emotional needs, etc).
Why are we afraid of AI? Because it can sift through thousands of computers near-instantaneously and collect the data it needs? Because it can control physical machinery halfway across the world?
We can do all of that. And with the right upgrades (which, again, are probably easier than inventing a conscious machine), we'll be able to do it as fast and as well as any machine.
Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin? You wouldn't be able to follow someone around while they're in public, yelling insults, all day, every day. Eventually you'd get a restraining order, and if you violated it, you'd go to jail. At some point "saying what I don't like" becomes more damaging to my quality of life than a punch in the face.
And tailgating is in the eye of the beholder. The type of person who would do 30 in the fast lane is exactly the type of person who would complain about the "tailgaters" hovering 100 feet back.
the Sun gives up a max of 1.3KW per square meter
Wow. Couldn't even bother to RTFS, could you? It clearly states that this device "increases the sun's radiation by 2,000 times", so feel free to rerun your calculations with 2.6MW.
Unfortunately, the summary doesn't state whether the increase occurs just around the device or for the entire sun. Just to be safe you might want to buy 3-foot lead sunscreen.
Thank You, raymorris. I'd read most of the thread and still didn't have a clear idea of the problem.
There's only one of it?
I know! The only thing more annoying than those bozos are the other bozos who preemptively call them out, as if their whiny comment will be of use to anyone.
Fortunately, I haven't seen any of the absolute worst scum, who feel the need to point out the faults of the other two bozos. Complains about complainers are the lowest form of comment.
That's a great point. At this point in the show, they could introduce a "normal" scientist and he'd be a complete outsider.
Why can't "god" be the default?
Because every phenomenon has the same effect when it doesn't exist, and only differentiates itself from other things when it does exist. So to explain lightning, you start from a default position that encompasses all possible explanations - "One or more phenomena exist and are causing this, and all others do not exist, or do not create lightning", and then try to narrow down which of the infinite imaginable phenomena are the ones causing lightning.
If "no X" weren't the default position (not just gods), then to be fair we'd have to assume that everything imaginable exists. And...well...Louis CK puts it far better than I could.
Wow.
Can someone help me out? What's the name for when someone acts like a crazy supporter of their opponents to make their opponents look crazy? (you can tell that's what's up because the only person named in the post is the right-wing boogeyman-of-the-day, Elizabeth Warren)
Anyone who is proficient in programming shouldn't have a problem picking up a book (or website) and learning a new langauge, API, etc. in a weekend or two.
This is true as long as you're hacking something together. If you're expected to work with other developers and create something maintainable, you've got to learn a million little standards, conventions, quirks, tricks, and optional 3rd-party libraries.
Picking up the basics is easy, but in my experience it takes a couple of years before one can truly be comfortable with a new language.
Absolutely not. There are, unfortunately, very good reasons to be skeptical. A lot of well-meaning dumbasses have ruined it for legitimate victims.
The original post wasn't just skeptical though, it was accusatory. Even worse, it used the "just asking questions" style of accusation, which (personal judgment here) is a very trollish style of debate.
Me? I'm neurotic. I'd play on my phone and idly click the "Screenshot" button every few seconds until I was sure there wouldn't be more, then post the first one with all the posts. Maybe that's why I don't treat it as a smoking gun.
I'm a bit sad to say I'm sitting at about 50/50 on this. That said, I definitely wouldn't state anything one way or the other until all the facts are in....and probably not afterwards either - I'm just not that invested :)
That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image
Did I miss anything?
Or almost as if someone was tweeting constantly (if the screenshot were taken 30 seconds earlier, it *also* would have been 12 seconds after the last tweet).
Almost as if someone were sent a link while they weren't logged in to twitter, and took a screenshot.
Now, nothing's impossible, but you'll need a hell of a lot more evidence to show this was staged. And speaking with such certainty based on such flimsy evidence just makes you look like another troll.
I think you're reading the wrong message. With a bit more context:
If nothing else, that very fact should give one pause. Fundamental changes in the structure of most Linux distributions should not be met with such fervent opposition.
I read that as an argument against systemd. Something like "Fundamental changes will happen in any complex system, but when those changes are positive, they will not be met with such fervent opposition".
I know, how could anyone make a statement as ridiculously inconsistent as "I don't like this one system administered by this group over here, and would like a very different system to be put in place by that group over there"?
Morons.
What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for
I don't think I'd be particularly concerned, assuming:
I'm not saying 33 months isn't an excessive sentence, but you just sound dumb when you make these comparisons.
If that's true, show your work.
If the exact same energy is converted from mass->light->mass again, in the exact same form (same electron spins, etc), then at what point was it destroyed? E=mc^2, which tells us that light and matter are just two different forms of the same phenomenon (or, at least, *might*, which is good enough for a hypothetical argument).
What about the simple replacement of atoms in your body from year to year. If 50% of the atoms in your body have been replaced, have "you" been destroyed and recreated?