What are you talking about? The US has been in a depression for 10 years with less than 3% GDP growth. Forbes called 2009-2013 the "worst five years since the Great Depression". If anything America is due for a boom.
Steve Huffman of Reddit is an admitted faker. He's admitted gaming reddit for years, first to get the site some unearned exposure, then to boost staff posts, and more recently changes to the algorithm to suppress the popularity of the_donald reaching the front page. He stealth edited posts on the_donald by directly writing to the database so the post wouldn't look like it was edited. He faked it so it seemed like the original user said those things. The_Donald users archive their site daily so things like that become easy to spot and prove, and he was forced to apologize.
Reddit is predominantly white and male. Trump's supporters are predominantly white and male. It stands to reason they would be highly active on reddit as they are on other forums like 4chan, and so on. Yet if you listen to Steve Huffman he seems to act like they are a minority on the site and any activity must be Russian Trolls. It just doesn't seem likely.
These CEOs want us to believe they have these brilliant investigative skills into this mythical army of russian trolls, yet they can't cover their own traces when they manipulate votes, edit people's posts or alter algorithms to favor political forums they agree with.
Why do you people keep calling him "orange"? Why is that the level of discourse from the supposedly more enlightened and educated? Are your arguments really that devoid of intellectual content?
John Podesta is a Smart Guy, but he was stupid enough to fall for a phishing attack
He wasn't just stupid, he was ignorant in an area vitally important to his job and the country. One of his passwords was "P@ssword" sent over plain text. Another of his passwords was "Runner123", crackable by a dictionary attack in seconds. He also used "Runner5678", also easily crackable. He obviously reused passwords, hence his twitter account was hacked after his apple ID password was leaked. He didn't have 2 step authentication switched on. He used open wifi hotspots on public transport, and as we all know he fell for that phishing scam. He very nearly became part of "President Hillary's" cabinet, possibly Secretary of State. I don't know what areas he's smart in but he sounds like an idiot to me.
It appears it affects their body clock in some way.
They always seem to think they never have time to exercise and lose the excess weight even though babies sleep 20 hours a day and coffee shops usually close at 5PM.
Ebert never demonized entire groups of people, or made racist or disgusting remarks about them. Even when he made a dumb statement about video games not being art he made his argument respectfully and dealt with the criticism respectfully. His perspective was completely ignorant, not as glaringly stupid and lacking in reason as Sarkeesians, but it was still from the point of view of someone who never played games. However, he didn't run to the media about being a victim. He was the media, one of the few good ones in an industry of trolls and he respectfully disagreed. When he realized he couldn't convince anybody he wrote a follow up article and left it at that. He was told he was wrong many many times by many smart people, and probably a few trolls as well. He handled it like a reasonable adult.
Sarkeesian on the other hand responded by playing the victim, demonizing her critics, and using the media to write a narrative that she was the victim of an "abuse" campaign. The negative response Sarkeesian gets is as a direct response to the way she insults and generalizes entire groups of people, making arguments from ignorance. She's also taken huge amounts of money in donations and failed to deliver on her Kickstarter promise which is now overdue by 3 years. She is considered to be a scammer, but also a racist and sexist scam artist who avoids addressing her critics directly, and instead uses the media to attack them indirectly. Hopefully that should explain why she gets a more negative reaction than Roger Ebert.
After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
Do you have a citation of this? Show your workings. What are you defining as harassment? Who specifically is being doxxed and by whom? How are you calculating that "most of it" is "by gamergate fanboys". You mentioned Felicia Day, but what evidence do you have that she was doxxed and that it was a "gamergate fanboy"? Was this information publicly available information that was just copy\pasted from a public source? Is that really doxxing? Or was this private information known only to a few? If so, who discovered this private information? Where was it stored? Was this someone close to Felicia or in a position of power? How was this private information transferred to a public medium? Who made this transfer, and how do you know their personal feelings on gamergate?
These seem like basic questions. I presume you have answers for all them. I'll be checking.
BTW, "gamergate fanboy" just seems like a meaningless label to carry emotional rather than specific factual information. What are you specifically trying to communicate with that label?
But they didn't think about it, and then they did it. So it's done. What's your solution? Welfare? You pay out of your taxes in exchange for them learning their lesson about trolling little girls. Though technically, they could probably still troll and collect welfare.
Or what? Deny them welfare, employment and education? Follow them around for life?
What is your actual solution to the people behind these public shamings? Because when you find a new mob to bring excitement into your quiet and timid life, these people are still roaming about, and have to do something, and have to feed themselves somehow.
The problem with assholes is that everybody has a different definition of an asshole. I think you're an asshole, because you shit on assholes. Shitting on assholes is still shitting on somebody.
I hope every one of these sick little fuckers loses their job, gets kicked out of school *and* has their name attached to the story.
And then what? Go on welfare? Be homeless? Beg on the street? Never get an education or an opportunity to better himself? Life in jail? Never be able to get a job again?
What's your plan that doesn't somebody else (likely us taxpayers) having to support them for the rest of their lives? Are you comfortable with angry people walking around with no money, nothing to do, and completely desperate?
Since this story has been around for a couple of days I would have hoped slashdot would know better and have avoided the sensationalist headline. Here's what the experts say.
The biggest problem is that this has been described as three-parent IVF. In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF," Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist, told the BBC. "Less than a tenth of one per cent of the genome is actually going to be affected. It is not part of what makes us genetically who we are. It doesn't affect height, eye colour, intelligence, musicality. It simply allows the batteries to work properly."
One naturally begins to suspect the movement is less than entirely honest about who and what it's targets are.
That's not really a nice way to look at people. You personally find it difficult to see what their goals are, so your next assumption is that they are dishonest? I believe that's a variation of argument from incredulity. Surely you can't be going around in life assuming dishonesty everytime you don't understand the aims of a group.
I don't really see what the goals are for most political movements, to be honest, such as Occupy Wall street, but they sure seemed like nice friendly people when I talked to them.
Also, how does an entire group of probably tens of thousands of loosely connected people act dishonestly? It would be difficult to organize that. It also doesn't hold up well to Occam's Razor.
Probably a better term for "SJW" in its current dominant usage would be keyboard warrior, however the horse has already bolted.
To paraphrase James Randi, "words are defined by their usage". "Social Justice Warrior" has definitely a predominantly pejorative usage, generally used to describe the self important authoritarians rather than the selfless compassionate ones. For example, few people who use SJW as a pejorative would ever describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an SJW, yet SJW will be used predominantly to describe self important keyboard warriors
At this point, SJW has as much chance of having a predominantly positive usage as "Men Rights Activist".
I've looked into this too. There are certainly threatening comments on twitter, but these get labelled as "By Gamergate" without any kind of awareness of the association fallacy. A threatening comment is always the responsibility of the individual. There are threatening comments all over social media, and anyone can be a victim of it. The media have been parroting this online harassment as fact without distinguishing it from criticism or just rudeness, and also without any acknowledgement of the same harassment on the other side. Active Gamergate supporters seem to vastly outnumber the anti Gamergate crowd by an order of magnitude, so I wonder if that makes it seem worse.
After 5 months of "GamerGate" there's been no arrests, no serious evidence of any imminent threat published or connection to any organized "harassment" campaign. Gamergate supporters themselves have been harassed, swatted, sent malicious objects in the mail and this is largely ignored in the media. Possibly because many of them took a different approach, and didn't kick up that much of a fuss about it, or perhaps because it doesn't fit the media's narrative.
This is my personal experience only, but the vast majority of gamergate supporters I spoke to were laid back, intelligent, friendly, and positive. There was the same ratio of weird but nice people that you'd find in any group really. However, many of Zoe Quinn's supporters ranged from being rude to abusive to authoritarian. They had an air of mocking superiority that gets old really quickly, and why I stay away from twitter.
Judging by her online postings she doesn't seem all that different to this new wave of internet troll that we're getting these days. A whole lot of name calling, revelling in drama, and taunting her "haterz", and that kind of thing. It's a bit cringeworthy.
I accidentally dropped my kettle breaking the switch. I thought it would be easy to just unscrew the base, and reinsert it. Except it was screwed with what I later learned were tamper proof screws. I could buy the screwdriver online, but with the cost, postage, one off use, and three days without cups of tea I just bought a new one.
But then you could also buy your coffee at costco, and a nice flask, and you get your cheapest caffeine every day and less disposable cups going to landfills.
Though, another point worth mentioning is that coffee's stimulant effect on the body wears off after a while as the body learns to adapt. Some athletes will give up coffee so that their caffeine gels are a bit more effective on race day.
It's kind of a gateway drug, in that once you open the Red Bull gate you are entering a world where you pay triple for the equivalent energy of a banana, and the equivalent caffeine of a cup of coffee. It's kind of like a gateway to a world of dummies.
Well, it's a logical fallacy, called Poisoning the Well. You discredit what a person might say later by misrepresenting them now. You calmly and rationally tell them that it's a logical fallacy, and that's how you defend it.
I remember in the old days of debating on the internet logical fallacies were referenced a lot. I remember Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit getting a lot of hits when arguments got emotional. It doesn't happen so much anymore, because there's a large influx of people making highly emotive arguments but without much discipline in reasoned arguments. They may make valid points, but when they don't you should point out the logical fallacies in their reasoning. We're all prone to logical fallacies, so it's healthy for debate overall.
Under a 2002 law it was made illegal to change the IMEI unless you're the manufacturer.
However, under a 2006 amendment to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 it was made illegal to even OFFER to do this. You don't have to actually change the IMEI to commit the offense, you just have to offer or say you will. Punishment is up to 5 years in prison.
The smartphone blackmarket could be wiped out just by enforcing this law.
Surely, I can't be the only one that';s rolling my eyes at this 45%\46% statistic that's being thrown about lately. It seems like this statistic is either misunderstood or abused.
Puzzle, board and card games made up the majority of online games at 34%. Action, sports, RPG games were all categorized together bizarrely and represented 26%. There's no breakdown of gender per genre, something that's pretty important in a discussion about gender in games. Most gamers would not consider someone who plays poker or scrabble online as a gamer, though, yes, I suppose technically they are. You're a gamer if you play snake on your phone while waiting for the train, but then, if you're a woman, is it fair to criticize the games industry for not catering to you, because in a trade show on the other side of the country a scantily clad model is dressed up as a video game character? Even if you do factor in board and phone games, E3 is not catering to these kinds of players. Is that sexist? I don't know, but I know the ESA's report isn't accurate enough to make that call. Most people have a gaming device called a phone, and have probably played a few games on it, and purchased Angry Birds or some such tat. Does that make them a gamer? I would welcome a more detailed study, particularly one that goes into a lot more detail.
Twitch.tv(for game streaming), online multiplayer, trade shows seem to be dominated by men. If women are making up nearly half of gamers where are they? I'm not saying the study is lying. I'm just saying it's too broad. There are genres and gaming platforms favoured by men and women in different proportions, and evidence of sexism starts with gathering
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? The US has been in a depression for 10 years with less than 3% GDP growth. Forbes called 2009-2013 the "worst five years since the Great Depression". If anything America is due for a boom.
Reddit is predominantly white and male. Trump's supporters are predominantly white and male. It stands to reason they would be highly active on reddit as they are on other forums like 4chan, and so on. Yet if you listen to Steve Huffman he seems to act like they are a minority on the site and any activity must be Russian Trolls. It just doesn't seem likely.
These CEOs want us to believe they have these brilliant investigative skills into this mythical army of russian trolls, yet they can't cover their own traces when they manipulate votes, edit people's posts or alter algorithms to favor political forums they agree with.
Why do you people keep calling him "orange"? Why is that the level of discourse from the supposedly more enlightened and educated? Are your arguments really that devoid of intellectual content?
He wasn't just stupid, he was ignorant in an area vitally important to his job and the country. One of his passwords was "P@ssword" sent over plain text. Another of his passwords was "Runner123", crackable by a dictionary attack in seconds. He also used "Runner5678", also easily crackable. He obviously reused passwords, hence his twitter account was hacked after his apple ID password was leaked. He didn't have 2 step authentication switched on. He used open wifi hotspots on public transport, and as we all know he fell for that phishing scam. He very nearly became part of "President Hillary's" cabinet, possibly Secretary of State. I don't know what areas he's smart in but he sounds like an idiot to me.
It appears it affects their body clock in some way. They always seem to think they never have time to exercise and lose the excess weight even though babies sleep 20 hours a day and coffee shops usually close at 5PM.
92% of startups fail in the first 3 years. Can a startup afford to install a safe space around every desk before the next election cycle.
Honestly, the hysteria from these anti-Trump people is hilarious. They're one chalk scribbled MAGA away from having a nervous breakdown.
Ebert never demonized entire groups of people, or made racist or disgusting remarks about them. Even when he made a dumb statement about video games not being art he made his argument respectfully and dealt with the criticism respectfully. His perspective was completely ignorant, not as glaringly stupid and lacking in reason as Sarkeesians, but it was still from the point of view of someone who never played games. However, he didn't run to the media about being a victim. He was the media, one of the few good ones in an industry of trolls and he respectfully disagreed. When he realized he couldn't convince anybody he wrote a follow up article and left it at that. He was told he was wrong many many times by many smart people, and probably a few trolls as well. He handled it like a reasonable adult.
Sarkeesian on the other hand responded by playing the victim, demonizing her critics, and using the media to write a narrative that she was the victim of an "abuse" campaign. The negative response Sarkeesian gets is as a direct response to the way she insults and generalizes entire groups of people, making arguments from ignorance. She's also taken huge amounts of money in donations and failed to deliver on her Kickstarter promise which is now overdue by 3 years. She is considered to be a scammer, but also a racist and sexist scam artist who avoids addressing her critics directly, and instead uses the media to attack them indirectly. Hopefully that should explain why she gets a more negative reaction than Roger Ebert.
After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
Do you have a citation of this? Show your workings. What are you defining as harassment? Who specifically is being doxxed and by whom? How are you calculating that "most of it" is "by gamergate fanboys". You mentioned Felicia Day, but what evidence do you have that she was doxxed and that it was a "gamergate fanboy"? Was this information publicly available information that was just copy\pasted from a public source? Is that really doxxing? Or was this private information known only to a few? If so, who discovered this private information? Where was it stored? Was this someone close to Felicia or in a position of power? How was this private information transferred to a public medium? Who made this transfer, and how do you know their personal feelings on gamergate? These seem like basic questions. I presume you have answers for all them. I'll be checking. BTW, "gamergate fanboy" just seems like a meaningless label to carry emotional rather than specific factual information. What are you specifically trying to communicate with that label?
Or what? Deny them welfare, employment and education? Follow them around for life?
What is your actual solution to the people behind these public shamings? Because when you find a new mob to bring excitement into your quiet and timid life, these people are still roaming about, and have to do something, and have to feed themselves somehow.
You should have learned not to do that.
"Oh but they should have thought". Yeah, obviously they didn't. Now they have no job, and according to some people shouldn't have an education.
No job, no prospects of bettering themselves.
Then what. You have angry men with nothing to do walking around. What's your SOLUTION to these specific people?
I hope every one of these sick little fuckers loses their job, gets kicked out of school *and* has their name attached to the story.
And then what? Go on welfare? Be homeless? Beg on the street? Never get an education or an opportunity to better himself? Life in jail? Never be able to get a job again? What's your plan that doesn't somebody else (likely us taxpayers) having to support them for the rest of their lives? Are you comfortable with angry people walking around with no money, nothing to do, and completely desperate?
I don't see any pedo material there. Do you know something law enforcement doesn't?
Since this story has been around for a couple of days I would have hoped slashdot would know better and have avoided the sensationalist headline. Here's what the experts say.
The biggest problem is that this has been described as three-parent IVF. In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF," Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist, told the BBC. "Less than a tenth of one per cent of the genome is actually going to be affected. It is not part of what makes us genetically who we are. It doesn't affect height, eye colour, intelligence, musicality. It simply allows the batteries to work properly."
One naturally begins to suspect the movement is less than entirely honest about who and what it's targets are.
That's not really a nice way to look at people. You personally find it difficult to see what their goals are, so your next assumption is that they are dishonest? I believe that's a variation of argument from incredulity. Surely you can't be going around in life assuming dishonesty everytime you don't understand the aims of a group.
I don't really see what the goals are for most political movements, to be honest, such as Occupy Wall street, but they sure seemed like nice friendly people when I talked to them.
Also, how does an entire group of probably tens of thousands of loosely connected people act dishonestly? It would be difficult to organize that. It also doesn't hold up well to Occam's Razor.
Probably a better term for "SJW" in its current dominant usage would be keyboard warrior, however the horse has already bolted.
To paraphrase James Randi, "words are defined by their usage". "Social Justice Warrior" has definitely a predominantly pejorative usage, generally used to describe the self important authoritarians rather than the selfless compassionate ones. For example, few people who use SJW as a pejorative would ever describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an SJW, yet SJW will be used predominantly to describe self important keyboard warriors
At this point, SJW has as much chance of having a predominantly positive usage as "Men Rights Activist".
I've looked into this too. There are certainly threatening comments on twitter, but these get labelled as "By Gamergate" without any kind of awareness of the association fallacy. A threatening comment is always the responsibility of the individual. There are threatening comments all over social media, and anyone can be a victim of it. The media have been parroting this online harassment as fact without distinguishing it from criticism or just rudeness, and also without any acknowledgement of the same harassment on the other side. Active Gamergate supporters seem to vastly outnumber the anti Gamergate crowd by an order of magnitude, so I wonder if that makes it seem worse.
After 5 months of "GamerGate" there's been no arrests, no serious evidence of any imminent threat published or connection to any organized "harassment" campaign. Gamergate supporters themselves have been harassed, swatted, sent malicious objects in the mail and this is largely ignored in the media. Possibly because many of them took a different approach, and didn't kick up that much of a fuss about it, or perhaps because it doesn't fit the media's narrative.
This is my personal experience only, but the vast majority of gamergate supporters I spoke to were laid back, intelligent, friendly, and positive. There was the same ratio of weird but nice people that you'd find in any group really. However, many of Zoe Quinn's supporters ranged from being rude to abusive to authoritarian. They had an air of mocking superiority that gets old really quickly, and why I stay away from twitter.
Judging by her online postings she doesn't seem all that different to this new wave of internet troll that we're getting these days. A whole lot of name calling, revelling in drama, and taunting her "haterz", and that kind of thing. It's a bit cringeworthy.
I accidentally dropped my kettle breaking the switch. I thought it would be easy to just unscrew the base, and reinsert it. Except it was screwed with what I later learned were tamper proof screws. I could buy the screwdriver online, but with the cost, postage, one off use, and three days without cups of tea I just bought a new one.
But then you could also buy your coffee at costco, and a nice flask, and you get your cheapest caffeine every day and less disposable cups going to landfills. Though, another point worth mentioning is that coffee's stimulant effect on the body wears off after a while as the body learns to adapt. Some athletes will give up coffee so that their caffeine gels are a bit more effective on race day.
It's kind of a gateway drug, in that once you open the Red Bull gate you are entering a world where you pay triple for the equivalent energy of a banana, and the equivalent caffeine of a cup of coffee. It's kind of like a gateway to a world of dummies.
Well, it's a logical fallacy, called Poisoning the Well. You discredit what a person might say later by misrepresenting them now. You calmly and rationally tell them that it's a logical fallacy, and that's how you defend it.
I remember in the old days of debating on the internet logical fallacies were referenced a lot. I remember Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit getting a lot of hits when arguments got emotional. It doesn't happen so much anymore, because there's a large influx of people making highly emotive arguments but without much discipline in reasoned arguments. They may make valid points, but when they don't you should point out the logical fallacies in their reasoning. We're all prone to logical fallacies, so it's healthy for debate overall.
Under a 2002 law it was made illegal to change the IMEI unless you're the manufacturer. However, under a 2006 amendment to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 it was made illegal to even OFFER to do this. You don't have to actually change the IMEI to commit the offense, you just have to offer or say you will. Punishment is up to 5 years in prison. The smartphone blackmarket could be wiped out just by enforcing this law.
Were you aware of how much that whole scenario is like a Seinfeld episode?
Surely, I can't be the only one that';s rolling my eyes at this 45%\46% statistic that's being thrown about lately. It seems like this statistic is either misunderstood or abused. Puzzle, board and card games made up the majority of online games at 34%. Action, sports, RPG games were all categorized together bizarrely and represented 26%. There's no breakdown of gender per genre, something that's pretty important in a discussion about gender in games. Most gamers would not consider someone who plays poker or scrabble online as a gamer, though, yes, I suppose technically they are. You're a gamer if you play snake on your phone while waiting for the train, but then, if you're a woman, is it fair to criticize the games industry for not catering to you, because in a trade show on the other side of the country a scantily clad model is dressed up as a video game character? Even if you do factor in board and phone games, E3 is not catering to these kinds of players. Is that sexist? I don't know, but I know the ESA's report isn't accurate enough to make that call. Most people have a gaming device called a phone, and have probably played a few games on it, and purchased Angry Birds or some such tat. Does that make them a gamer? I would welcome a more detailed study, particularly one that goes into a lot more detail. Twitch.tv(for game streaming), online multiplayer, trade shows seem to be dominated by men. If women are making up nearly half of gamers where are they? I'm not saying the study is lying. I'm just saying it's too broad. There are genres and gaming platforms favoured by men and women in different proportions, and evidence of sexism starts with gathering