1. loss of ownership = loss of control. This seems to be a trend everywhere nowadays, one being sold as 'convenience.' The age of technology as a tool of empowerment died with the 90s. Today, it's about control schemes. If you are or are not doing/saying/paying the right people/things, you don't go anywhere. 2. safety. I just don't buy that the computers in these things are as situationally aware as a human driver. we can't even get trains to run fully autonomously yet.
I worry about the future we're rushing to embrace. You all should too.
1. I agree. For now anyway. 2. not if you actually want the craft to arrive at specific destinations reliably. Ballistics+thrusters work ok for in-system exploration but getting an unpowered craft to another star system is nearly impossible.
Cultural marxists must always push as though they've made no headway because it helps ramp up the sensationalism...and taxpayer funded privilege.
I don't mind having female astronauts. I have a problem with astronauts being chosen because they're female instead of having the best qualifications. That is sexist by definition, and is wrong if gender has no relevance here. I don't know whether these women were chosen in this way, but considering cultural trends these days, it's a possibility.
1. voyager does not support human life. we're still experimenting with long term life support technology, but it's not ready for a real mission. 2. voyager has no propulsion system required to reliably reach other systems. we are probably centuries away from this, if it ever happens.
Wow, now that's a sense of entitlement. See, there's no reason why society should be forced to pay for and play in your fantasy. If I tried to identify as another species, not only would others not go along (like police), but I'd be ridiculed for such idiocy. The same applies here, it's just that the political correctness queens have designated this fetish as some kind of 'identity' for the sake of their political strategy.
If the body is male (has penis/gonads/musculature), you're male. If the body is female (uterus/ovaries etc), you're female. End of story. What you 'feel' is irrelevant.
Sex IS gender, no matter what twisted PC redefinitions and 'research' the college campus queers are throwing around these days. These people think gender is some kind of social construct instead of something that is very closely tied to biology. They're as whack as the scientologists.
gender a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
So an extreme minority has to explain to most people why they need special treatment? What else is new? Even a straight white male with a broken leg in a cast needs to explain his situation to the airline attendant in order to get his seat squared away. The fact is, he may be turned down for the flight because of it. Either example is life on the fringe. The further one goes, the harder it gets. It sucks but we are not all equals and society can't afford to roll out the red carpet for every little difference. That's life. A transgendered 'woman' is a man who had his penis and gonads removed in order to live out some kind of sexual fetish. He's still a man.. just has issues. There is no reason why society should be forced to pay for and play in his fantasy. If he wants to be a 'she' then he should check off 'she' and be done with it. Eventually, though, 'she' will end up holding up whatever process 'she's involved in because 'she' is really a he and other women won't accept 'her' in their space, or 'she'll end up with the wrong kind of medical care.
Why would you be embarrassed? The software was designed for typical situations. That is reasonable. It's not your fault or the fault of the software designer. It's the fault of the few trying to live some kind of sexual fetish.
45% of game purchases are by women? I doubt that, unless they're skewing the stats to include mothers of children and such, which would not be an accurate depiction of the gamer market that is still (and will probably always be) male dominated. Tellingly, fluff pieces like these lack links to the stats or studies themselves, so I have to assume they were massaged in yet another attempt to depict women as some kind of silent 'almost' majority in need of PC 'saviors' for political purposes. Even if these stats are accurate, I doubt they take genre demographics into account. For example, marketing for a military themed FPS title would target a different demographic than a puzzle or adventure title. It might make sense to use booth babes for the former, but not the latter..and that's usually how it turns out.
Feminists need to understand that equal opportunity does not imply equal outcome, nor does it entitle them to dictate to men what they should and shouldn't find appealing. They're welcome to try getting more women into games, but the same tired whining about 'uncomfortable' environments as the excuse just reenforces the stereotype (that they claim they're fighting) of women as the weaker sex who lack the emotional maturity to see beyond simplistic marketing tactics not even directed at them! If the majority of buyers of the title will be male, then the industry marketers are doing their jobs correctly as women won't be interested in the title, anyway...and no, it is not the job of the publisher to ensure that feminine appeal. They should be free to make the titles as they please, and these feminist are more than welcome to build (or fund) titles they think will appeal more to women if they think the established content is undesirable to them. However, I think the interest in games and competition will never be as strong in women as it is in men no matter how much the titles are emasculated.
"I really enjoy writing for women," said David Cage, creator of the PlayStation 3 game "Beyond: Two Souls," which features actress Ellen Page as the heroine. "I like female characters because they can be very strong and very tough, but they can cry and be very sensitive. They have a palette of emotions that's much wider than with male characters."
Right, so men have no qualities at all? Political correctness can't let them be too strong, assertive, or intelligent because it would show any female characters as weaker/submissive, and since men don't cry much and women do, it makes women the better default choice. Meanwhile, lets just stereotype men as imbecilic cannon fodder since no one will complain about that, right? What horrible, hypocritical reasoning. Basically, the feminist message seems to be that games designed with a male lead (nevermind a character like duke nukem) lacking a a female keeping him in check somehow, are sexist, yet when it swings the other way (eg: tomb raider or mirror's edge), it's a-ok as long as her boobs aren't bigger than a B-cup.
Most of the best games in history are loaded with stereotypes which are a key part of the appeal in all of those titles. They allow globally accessible assumptions about the story and/or role of the player as they follow tropes that coincide with universal human existence (conflict/reconciliation/loss/achievement/hero/victim/sex/love etc). Few, if any of these are ever politically correct, and without them, games will be as dull as modern TV programming. I don't mind having the heroines, but not at the expense of the heroes.
'situational relevance' sounds like the 'kardashian adult' version of a child screaming "but we're not playing by those rules now!" The fact is that men are hardwired to be attracted to attractive women regardless of the situation. It's about time that feminists accept men for who they are as they demand for women.
just like control freak (open or closed) licenses are toxic to people who want to retain control of their computing resources and toolsets.
Historically, there've been too many instances in closed software where too much reliance for security was made with obscurity and legal action. This is a stark contrast to good software that is easily patched when needed by anyone.
the fact it only has one real display connection and it is only hdmi 1.4 puts this firmly into bragging-rights consumer level hardware for me. I have my doubts about the thunderbolt connected displays. Also, cramming a bunch of workstation 'laptop' hardware into a cylinder isn't worth the price premium.
which is why it takes gigacycles (and 10x the ram) to do the same things we used to do in a few megacycles.. It's one thing to not obsess over every extra loop or cache miss, but that doesn't excuse the slovenly, bloated mess that is the average software application today.
He's not telling them not to contribute.. He's telling them they're trying to place their contributions in the wrong tree. They don't belong in the -rc trees.
Being blunt and direct is the only way to fight the catty, passive aggressive behavior seen in modern social interaction. If anything, to people like linus, saying dumb things and then hiding behind your feelings when called out on it is dickish.
Slashdot Mirror
1. loss of ownership = loss of control. This seems to be a trend everywhere nowadays, one being sold as 'convenience.' The age of technology as a tool of empowerment died with the 90s. Today, it's about control schemes. If you are or are not doing/saying/paying the right people/things, you don't go anywhere.
2. safety. I just don't buy that the computers in these things are as situationally aware as a human driver. we can't even get trains to run fully autonomously yet.
I worry about the future we're rushing to embrace. You all should too.
you just said "seems to be working fine in deep space".
Of course, but it makes perfect sense if you accept the pillars of political correctness as truth. viva la revolucion!!
1. I agree. For now anyway.
2. not if you actually want the craft to arrive at specific destinations reliably. Ballistics+thrusters work ok for in-system exploration but getting an unpowered craft to another star system is nearly impossible.
NASA is a government agency. This guarantees that any candidate selection process is loaded with politically correct assumptions and discriminators.
Cultural marxists must always push as though they've made no headway because it helps ramp up the sensationalism...and taxpayer funded privilege.
I don't mind having female astronauts. I have a problem with astronauts being chosen because they're female instead of having the best qualifications. That is sexist by definition, and is wrong if gender has no relevance here. I don't know whether these women were chosen in this way, but considering cultural trends these days, it's a possibility.
1. voyager does not support human life. we're still experimenting with long term life support technology, but it's not ready for a real mission.
2. voyager has no propulsion system required to reliably reach other systems. we are probably centuries away from this, if it ever happens.
Wow, now that's a sense of entitlement. See, there's no reason why society should be forced to pay for and play in your fantasy. If I tried to identify as another species, not only would others not go along (like police), but I'd be ridiculed for such idiocy. The same applies here, it's just that the political correctness queens have designated this fetish as some kind of 'identity' for the sake of their political strategy.
If the body is male (has penis/gonads/musculature), you're male. If the body is female (uterus/ovaries etc), you're female. End of story. What you 'feel' is irrelevant.
Sex IS gender, no matter what twisted PC redefinitions and 'research' the college campus queers are throwing around these days. These people think gender is some kind of social construct instead of something that is very closely tied to biology. They're as whack as the scientologists.
gender a : sex
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
So an extreme minority has to explain to most people why they need special treatment? What else is new? Even a straight white male with a broken leg in a cast needs to explain his situation to the airline attendant in order to get his seat squared away. The fact is, he may be turned down for the flight because of it. Either example is life on the fringe. The further one goes, the harder it gets. It sucks but we are not all equals and society can't afford to roll out the red carpet for every little difference. That's life. A transgendered 'woman' is a man who had his penis and gonads removed in order to live out some kind of sexual fetish. He's still a man.. just has issues. There is no reason why society should be forced to pay for and play in his fantasy. If he wants to be a 'she' then he should check off 'she' and be done with it. Eventually, though, 'she' will end up holding up whatever process 'she's involved in because 'she' is really a he and other women won't accept 'her' in their space, or 'she'll end up with the wrong kind of medical care.
Why would you be embarrassed? The software was designed for typical situations. That is reasonable. It's not your fault or the fault of the software designer. It's the fault of the few trying to live some kind of sexual fetish.
Me too. I am also not a child who thinks that others should dictate to me what I think or feel in a given situation.
45% of game purchases are by women? I doubt that, unless they're skewing the stats to include mothers of children and such, which would not be an accurate depiction of the gamer market that is still (and will probably always be) male dominated. Tellingly, fluff pieces like these lack links to the stats or studies themselves, so I have to assume they were massaged in yet another attempt to depict women as some kind of silent 'almost' majority in need of PC 'saviors' for political purposes. Even if these stats are accurate, I doubt they take genre demographics into account. For example, marketing for a military themed FPS title would target a different demographic than a puzzle or adventure title. It might make sense to use booth babes for the former, but not the latter..and that's usually how it turns out.
Feminists need to understand that equal opportunity does not imply equal outcome, nor does it entitle them to dictate to men what they should and shouldn't find appealing. They're welcome to try getting more women into games, but the same tired whining about 'uncomfortable' environments as the excuse just reenforces the stereotype (that they claim they're fighting) of women as the weaker sex who lack the emotional maturity to see beyond simplistic marketing tactics not even directed at them! If the majority of buyers of the title will be male, then the industry marketers are doing their jobs correctly as women won't be interested in the title, anyway...and no, it is not the job of the publisher to ensure that feminine appeal. They should be free to make the titles as they please, and these feminist are more than welcome to build (or fund) titles they think will appeal more to women if they think the established content is undesirable to them. However, I think the interest in games and competition will never be as strong in women as it is in men no matter how much the titles are emasculated.
"I really enjoy writing for women," said David Cage, creator of the PlayStation 3 game "Beyond: Two Souls," which features actress Ellen Page as the heroine. "I like female characters because they can be very strong and very tough, but they can cry and be very sensitive. They have a palette of emotions that's much wider than with male characters."
Right, so men have no qualities at all? Political correctness can't let them be too strong, assertive, or intelligent because it would show any female characters as weaker/submissive, and since men don't cry much and women do, it makes women the better default choice. Meanwhile, lets just stereotype men as imbecilic cannon fodder since no one will complain about that, right? What horrible, hypocritical reasoning. Basically, the feminist message seems to be that games designed with a male lead (nevermind a character like duke nukem) lacking a a female keeping him in check somehow, are sexist, yet when it swings the other way (eg: tomb raider or mirror's edge), it's a-ok as long as her boobs aren't bigger than a B-cup.
Most of the best games in history are loaded with stereotypes which are a key part of the appeal in all of those titles. They allow globally accessible assumptions about the story and/or role of the player as they follow tropes that coincide with universal human existence (conflict/reconciliation/loss/achievement/hero/victim/sex/love etc). Few, if any of these are ever politically correct, and without them, games will be as dull as modern TV programming. I don't mind having the heroines, but not at the expense of the heroes.
'situational relevance' sounds like the 'kardashian adult' version of a child screaming "but we're not playing by those rules now!" The fact is that men are hardwired to be attracted to attractive women regardless of the situation. It's about time that feminists accept men for who they are as they demand for women.
just like control freak (open or closed) licenses are toxic to people who want to retain control of their computing resources and toolsets.
Historically, there've been too many instances in closed software where too much reliance for security was made with obscurity and legal action. This is a stark contrast to good software that is easily patched when needed by anyone.
who cares.. this is supposed to be a 'workstation' product.. that means no compromise for performance. laptop video cards don't apply here.
Yes. some of us don't like paying extra money to the utilities. I guess that's why we don't buy overpriced designware either.
the fact it only has one real display connection and it is only hdmi 1.4 puts this firmly into bragging-rights consumer level hardware for me. I have my doubts about the thunderbolt connected displays. Also, cramming a bunch of workstation 'laptop' hardware into a cylinder isn't worth the price premium.
those 'monstrosities' allowed upgrades at least.
I hate shiny surfaces.. they show off every scratch and fingerprint
A good argument is a good argument, a bad one is a bad one. Anonymity has no bearing on this.
Fix it, or use something else then.
fuck - the rudest word in the universe.
yes, for spineless twats.
nor hide the fact it's ill suited for desktop use.
which is why it takes gigacycles (and 10x the ram) to do the same things we used to do in a few megacycles.. It's one thing to not obsess over every extra loop or cache miss, but that doesn't excuse the slovenly, bloated mess that is the average software application today.
He's not telling them not to contribute.. He's telling them they're trying to place their contributions in the wrong tree. They don't belong in the -rc trees.
Being blunt and direct is the only way to fight the catty, passive aggressive behavior seen in modern social interaction. If anything, to people like linus, saying dumb things and then hiding behind your feelings when called out on it is dickish.