Maybe.. It's possible that the majority of gamers have a lower tolerance for bullshit lies and hypocrisy than the average humanities major. After all, what matters to them most is how well you play, not whether you're male, female, gay, straight or anything else. So when people get on and whine about how they're oppressed in the game because of these traits, the gamers make fun of them.
Even if it means crushing others' rights, the truth, and anything or anyone else that stands in your way? I think your definition of 'better' is just a bit subjective. Today's media is full of fairyboys and women with princess xena complexes and it's still not enough? What the fuck?
That's right. Ignore the comments and move on. If your'e going to wear your shit on your shoulder for all to see, expect to be judged. This is true for everyone. Some will pat you on the back and say you go grrlfriend, and others will call you a faggot. That's life, so grow a thicker skin. These professional victim artists have no trouble violating their vaunted principles when dumping on libertarians, gun fans, or christians in the same manner. Guess what? They find your comments oppressive too. In fact, you're as bad as the christians because, like them, you want society to silence any speech or action that doesn't agree with your moral sensibility. Try practicing what you preach. Liberty requires that everyone leave each other alone and not use the government to oppress one another.
I don't see much 'progress' in a society with protected castes who cannot be criticized.
and just because someone 'feels' harassed doesn't give them the right to dictate the limits of said expression. That is an unbelievable entitlement complex..
Thus, the AC is blaming real victims that he does not actually believe are victims regardless of the reality of the situation.
No. He's making the (reasonable) assumption that the majority of the complainers are just drumbeating morons crushing free speech for the sake of social conformity and a emotional rush of self-righteousness. The other half of that justification is that they are always expanding the definitions of 'abuse' to the point of absurdity to pad their statistics and perpetuate their victim status. There are countries for people like this to move to, like sweden, china, and north korea. They should go there.
As far as rational arguments go, there are none regarding 'affirmative action' nor in the minds of the legions of morons it leaves in its wake. It is full of fallacies, double standards, hypocrisy, and spineless complaining. They need to stop telling other people what they should and should not do, think, and say, and learn to respect liberty. If they don't like how they're treated somewhere, they should leave. If they find themselves doing this a lot, then maybe it's time to learn not to take everything so damned seriously.
It's quite telling that people like you consider yourselves 'competitors', when you're spineless twats that can't handle a little shit talking without getting offended, esp in cases when you're not even a part of the 'slighted' group.
I find it hypocritical that people like you shame others who use these specific groups in derogatory statements, yet have no problem when those groups do the same thing back.. It's ok for girls to call men out for being fairies, but suddenly it's 'misogynistic' for men to do so.. It's ok for nonwhites to call whites cracka, whitey, white bread, etc, but not for whites to use colored people slang.
This cultural marxism is bullshit hypocrisy through and through. I don't want it anywhere near my gaming or anywhere in my life. If you can't handle free speech, move to sweden, china, or north korea.
As opposed to today's commercials and tv programs where she's the 'empowered' bitch and he's the insipid, incompetent little pantywaist? I fail to see the improvement. When she does it, she's 'empowered', and when he does it, he's a bastard... such 'equality'.
1. who are you to dictate someone's target customer base? 2. yes, that's right. Take what other people give you, refuse what they give you, and/or make your own. Those are the three basic choices of life. Deal with it. 3. Maybe just having the women who aren't professional victims as customers is enough.
The whole point is to eliminate or at least minimize external limiters so that the comparison is done on like terms. If they were to stream from the cdrom, the cpus will spend most of their cycles idle. So, typically, they rip a track to disk, run the encode several times, and average. This doesn't mislead anyone but the stupid, as it's a given that ripping takes the majority of time. What the test does suggest is that one chip is better with media transcoding than another, and that workload isn't always tied to ripping audio cds
The whole point of limiting applications to single threads is to compare per-core performance. This allows a general comparison of architecture performance that can be applied to other, similar applications not tested, and is a much more accurate comparison than running fully threaded and then making assumptions with math.
Yeah well as my language clearly suggests, I'm talking about should-be, not 'what-is.' The status quo selects for traits that cause a lot of organizational problems.
Maybe it's time people like yourself realize that skills are more important than whether the 'correct' pair of shoes are being worn. (I thought) most people stopped doing that once they graduate high school.
There are plenty of slickly dressed sycophants running wall street, the banks, the fortune 100, and the government. Should I assume that all people wearing suits and ties are potential criminals? I fail to see a correlation between dress and ability, but I do see a strong correlation between dresscode policies and senseless conformity.
Sounds like you spend most of your time hiring and/or working for insecure adolescents who still haven't graduated highschool. What someone wears is of little consequence for a desk job. Why would you ask for commitments from 'third parties' who judge on such irrational means? I wouldn't trust them worth a damn on that basis alone.
or, if the employer was rational, he would instead ask "Can you do XYZ? Yes? Ok, show me" and provide the opportunity to demonstrate relevant skills.. Clothing choice would not come up unless it was a safety hazard.
You can flip that first argument around very easily. Employers who enforce dress codes are thinking: "People who think clothing fashion trends and social conformity are more important than getting work done are insecure adolescents who still haven't graduated highschool."
An interview should model a typical day on the job. Pointless trick questions about 'goals' and personal life, along with passive-aggressive gamesmanship, are bullshit.
This status quo basically calls for one to lie, to project a false image that complies with either impossible to maintain and/or irrelevant expectations. Dress code is essentially a red herring. Choosing to wear a t-shirt and jeans over a suit is not the same thing as walking around in your underwear in public...and if you're dating girls that use your fashion as the first cut, then all I can say is I hope you enjoy getting raped in divorce court.
Employers shouldn't give a shit what people wear as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing their jobs. The only exception would be safety, and even that fits under the same umbrella.
Well, that's what your anecdotes say. Mine suggest that the slickly dressed goons with the degrees are the ones who ask the one guy dressed in a tshirt or polo shirt for help. As my language suggests, I'm talking about what should be, not what is.
A focus on skills over highschool level clique behavior like fretting over fashion would benefit the business world in general.
Except that you're wrong. If you change the library itself you'd have to release the patches. If you're just dynamically linking to it, you don't. A more appropriate question your boss might ask is "Why the hell are you putting our 'secrets' into the libc?"
I'm not sure why this was voted down, but there is a point here. If the future of OSS belongs to licenses that don't protect the continued openness of source, OSS authors are effectively working for free and competing with those who take their code and wrap it up in proprietary licenses.
It's ok to charge cash for binaries and/or source. So why is it so terrible to 'charge' source for source?
Well they can, but if the vendor distributes a modified version of glibc, they have to release the patches they made to it. I really don't see what the big deal is as there's no reason to hide secret bits in the libc. The proprietary magic is all in the custom programs running on top of it.
What google's doing is just a stupid PR stunt. They are legally bound by law not to acknowledge any NSA wiretapping, so when it became public knowledge they put on a show of faux outrage as a PR stunt. I guarantee the NSA is still getting google traffic and that google is complicit in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe.. It's possible that the majority of gamers have a lower tolerance for bullshit lies and hypocrisy than the average humanities major. After all, what matters to them most is how well you play, not whether you're male, female, gay, straight or anything else. So when people get on and whine about how they're oppressed in the game because of these traits, the gamers make fun of them.
Standard shaming language response.
Have you ever been exposed to reality?
Even if it means crushing others' rights, the truth, and anything or anyone else that stands in your way? I think your definition of 'better' is just a bit subjective. Today's media is full of fairyboys and women with princess xena complexes and it's still not enough? What the fuck?
That's right. Ignore the comments and move on. If your'e going to wear your shit on your shoulder for all to see, expect to be judged. This is true for everyone. Some will pat you on the back and say you go grrlfriend, and others will call you a faggot. That's life, so grow a thicker skin. These professional victim artists have no trouble violating their vaunted principles when dumping on libertarians, gun fans, or christians in the same manner. Guess what? They find your comments oppressive too. In fact, you're as bad as the christians because, like them, you want society to silence any speech or action that doesn't agree with your moral sensibility. Try practicing what you preach. Liberty requires that everyone leave each other alone and not use the government to oppress one another.
I don't see much 'progress' in a society with protected castes who cannot be criticized.
and just because someone 'feels' harassed doesn't give them the right to dictate the limits of said expression. That is an unbelievable entitlement complex..
Thus, the AC is blaming real victims that he does not actually believe are victims regardless of the reality of the situation.
No. He's making the (reasonable) assumption that the majority of the complainers are just drumbeating morons crushing free speech for the sake of social conformity and a emotional rush of self-righteousness. The other half of that justification is that they are always expanding the definitions of 'abuse' to the point of absurdity to pad their statistics and perpetuate their victim status. There are countries for people like this to move to, like sweden, china, and north korea. They should go there.
As far as rational arguments go, there are none regarding 'affirmative action' nor in the minds of the legions of morons it leaves in its wake. It is full of fallacies, double standards, hypocrisy, and spineless complaining. They need to stop telling other people what they should and should not do, think, and say, and learn to respect liberty. If they don't like how they're treated somewhere, they should leave. If they find themselves doing this a lot, then maybe it's time to learn not to take everything so damned seriously.
What harm? If you're mentally unhinged by mere words, you are the one with the problem.
'phobia' in in this case is actually an ad hominem attack on those who would question the hypocrisies of the doctrine.
It's quite telling that people like you consider yourselves 'competitors', when you're spineless twats that can't handle a little shit talking without getting offended, esp in cases when you're not even a part of the 'slighted' group.
I find it hypocritical that people like you shame others who use these specific groups in derogatory statements, yet have no problem when those groups do the same thing back.. It's ok for girls to call men out for being fairies, but suddenly it's 'misogynistic' for men to do so.. It's ok for nonwhites to call whites cracka, whitey, white bread, etc, but not for whites to use colored people slang.
This cultural marxism is bullshit hypocrisy through and through. I don't want it anywhere near my gaming or anywhere in my life. If you can't handle free speech, move to sweden, china, or north korea.
As opposed to today's commercials and tv programs where she's the 'empowered' bitch and he's the insipid, incompetent little pantywaist? I fail to see the improvement. When she does it, she's 'empowered', and when he does it, he's a bastard... such 'equality'.
1. who are you to dictate someone's target customer base?
2. yes, that's right. Take what other people give you, refuse what they give you, and/or make your own. Those are the three basic choices of life. Deal with it.
3. Maybe just having the women who aren't professional victims as customers is enough.
The whole point is to eliminate or at least minimize external limiters so that the comparison is done on like terms. If they were to stream from the cdrom, the cpus will spend most of their cycles idle. So, typically, they rip a track to disk, run the encode several times, and average. This doesn't mislead anyone but the stupid, as it's a given that ripping takes the majority of time. What the test does suggest is that one chip is better with media transcoding than another, and that workload isn't always tied to ripping audio cds
The whole point of limiting applications to single threads is to compare per-core performance. This allows a general comparison of architecture performance that can be applied to other, similar applications not tested, and is a much more accurate comparison than running fully threaded and then making assumptions with math.
Maybe it's time that adults quit being offended over something that offends low iq 15yo highschool girls? ("eew, omg, what are you wearinnnngg??")
Yeah well as my language clearly suggests, I'm talking about should-be, not 'what-is.' The status quo selects for traits that cause a lot of organizational problems.
Maybe it's time people like yourself realize that skills are more important than whether the 'correct' pair of shoes are being worn. (I thought) most people stopped doing that once they graduate high school.
There are plenty of slickly dressed sycophants running wall street, the banks, the fortune 100, and the government. Should I assume that all people wearing suits and ties are potential criminals? I fail to see a correlation between dress and ability, but I do see a strong correlation between dresscode policies and senseless conformity.
Sounds like you spend most of your time hiring and/or working for insecure adolescents who still haven't graduated highschool. What someone wears is of little consequence for a desk job. Why would you ask for commitments from 'third parties' who judge on such irrational means? I wouldn't trust them worth a damn on that basis alone.
or, if the employer was rational, he would instead ask "Can you do XYZ? Yes? Ok, show me" and provide the opportunity to demonstrate relevant skills.. Clothing choice would not come up unless it was a safety hazard.
You can flip that first argument around very easily. Employers who enforce dress codes are thinking: "People who think clothing fashion trends and social conformity are more important than getting work done are insecure adolescents who still haven't graduated highschool."
An interview should model a typical day on the job. Pointless trick questions about 'goals' and personal life, along with passive-aggressive gamesmanship, are bullshit.
This status quo basically calls for one to lie, to project a false image that complies with either impossible to maintain and/or irrelevant expectations. Dress code is essentially a red herring. Choosing to wear a t-shirt and jeans over a suit is not the same thing as walking around in your underwear in public. ..and if you're dating girls that use your fashion as the first cut, then all I can say is I hope you enjoy getting raped in divorce court.
Employers shouldn't give a shit what people wear as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing their jobs. The only exception would be safety, and even that fits under the same umbrella.
Well, that's what your anecdotes say. Mine suggest that the slickly dressed goons with the degrees are the ones who ask the one guy dressed in a tshirt or polo shirt for help. As my language suggests, I'm talking about what should be, not what is.
A focus on skills over highschool level clique behavior like fretting over fashion would benefit the business world in general.
Except that you're wrong. If you change the library itself you'd have to release the patches. If you're just dynamically linking to it, you don't. A more appropriate question your boss might ask is "Why the hell are you putting our 'secrets' into the libc?"
I'm not sure why this was voted down, but there is a point here. If the future of OSS belongs to licenses that don't protect the continued openness of source, OSS authors are effectively working for free and competing with those who take their code and wrap it up in proprietary licenses.
It's ok to charge cash for binaries and/or source. So why is it so terrible to 'charge' source for source?
Well they can, but if the vendor distributes a modified version of glibc, they have to release the patches they made to it. I really don't see what the big deal is as there's no reason to hide secret bits in the libc. The proprietary magic is all in the custom programs running on top of it.
Idiocracy.
What google's doing is just a stupid PR stunt. They are legally bound by law not to acknowledge any NSA wiretapping, so when it became public knowledge they put on a show of faux outrage as a PR stunt. I guarantee the NSA is still getting google traffic and that google is complicit in it.