Maybe because Wikipedia articles have to be based on citations of reliable sources, such as articles by journalists, books by edited and published authors, that sort of thing. Since most of the GamerGate support is from blogs and Twitter posts it can't be cited, and most of the reliable sources say it's an orgy of misogyny and trolling.
Imagine that... a group calling out (a subset) of mainstream media bullshit is crapped on by the "reliable sources" which all happen to be mainstream media - oh, and textbooks. Lots of reliability and fact-checking going on there, especially in Texas...
First, software that you make for yourself and don't let others use. Not even through services. Google and Facebook are considered non-free in that regard
Right, but that's not what I'm asking about. If they're considered non-free, they don't fit the criteria of "free software" but not "open source software." I get how something can be "open source" but not "FIAF", I was looking for examples of the opposite.
I honestly never tried their keyboards. After overpaying for the mouse and gamepads, and seeing how expensive the keyboards were, decided to stick with the old Model M and grabbed a Logitech G600 mouse instead. That's lasted me a year so far, and was much cheaper.
I don't know how well built the CODEs are, but Razer's build quality has been utter crap in my experience for the past few years, and their warranty support sucks (Naga mouse and two Onza TE gamepads in a row).
You can't prove a negative in a deductive sense but you can in an inductive sense. If little of the available evidence suggests that a proposition is true while much of the evidence suggests an alternative proposition is true, then the first proposition is unlikely to be true.
"Unlikely to be true" isn't the same as "proven negative." When discussing logic, "proof" has a specific meaning.
That said, your example/reasoning is mistaken, but you're underlying point is not. It is sometimes possible to prove a negative by contradiction (proving that the affirmative is impossible).
You might have a point, if the internet ^Wworld didn't have an abundant supply of nitwits willing to ignore any and all evidence that might conflict with their "individual" world view.
He might have had a male mentality, but he wasn't humanoid. He was basically a tall WALL-E. "Closer than R2D2" still leaves a lot of ground to cover.:D
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
They voted whether to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. And they eschewed some of the restrictions, like TFA said, so if you want to know then GOOGLE THE FUCKING LAW. The new restrictions are a subset of that.
Christ, people just spew shit out and don't even bother TRYING to inform themselves.
Your hatred of Comcast and fear of what it might do has lead to the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act
Your sense of reality needs to be rebooted. "Might do?" They've been doing it openly, for a couple of years now, you twit. You're the one pissing your panties over imaginary "might do" and using bullshit conspiracy theorist "reasoning". Look up how much censorship power Title II gave over landlines, for starters.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You need your dosage upped.
I wouldn't call it a "mass exodus." The most popular subverse is "News" with just over 3k subscribers, and there's obviously going to be people on both.
Which isn't to say that I hope it (or another site) doesn't succeed. This picture thing, in spite of all the headlines it's getting, is really a nothing in the ocean of dumbfuckery that's been going on at reddit for the past couple of years (The latest apparently being "gold-only" subreddits).
The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?
You actually need to show that "the whole point of [low-intensity violence] is to show the victim's body is the perpetrator's possession" first. Once you manage to establish that as something other than bullshit, then I'll take the onus from there. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because Wikipedia articles have to be based on citations of reliable sources, such as articles by journalists, books by edited and published authors, that sort of thing. Since most of the GamerGate support is from blogs and Twitter posts it can't be cited, and most of the reliable sources say it's an orgy of misogyny and trolling.
Imagine that... a group calling out (a subset) of mainstream media bullshit is crapped on by the "reliable sources" which all happen to be mainstream media - oh, and textbooks. Lots of reliability and fact-checking going on there, especially in Texas...
First, software that you make for yourself and don't let others use. Not even through services. Google and Facebook are considered non-free in that regard
Right, but that's not what I'm asking about. If they're considered non-free, they don't fit the criteria of "free software" but not "open source software." I get how something can be "open source" but not "FIAF", I was looking for examples of the opposite.
That's because there's close relationships between "free (as in freedom) software" and "open-source." Neither is a proper sub-set of the other though.
Bolded part has me curious. What sort "free software" would not fall under the looser defintion of "open source" at the same time?
Beyond Good and Evil was a decent puzzle/TPP game. Not quite sure how it got its cult icon status, but it was decent.
I honestly never tried their keyboards. After overpaying for the mouse and gamepads, and seeing how expensive the keyboards were, decided to stick with the old Model M and grabbed a Logitech G600 mouse instead. That's lasted me a year so far, and was much cheaper.
I don't know how well built the CODEs are, but Razer's build quality has been utter crap in my experience for the past few years, and their warranty support sucks (Naga mouse and two Onza TE gamepads in a row).
you are more likely to replace the keyboard because it's input port has disappeared on your new computer than because it has stopped functioning.
Not until there are no more adapters to be had, dammit!
Though if I end up having to chain a third one in there, I'll probably have to work out some kind of hack for weight support...
There are also cows, pigs, horses, and chickens.
You can't prove a negative in a deductive sense but you can in an inductive sense. If little of the available evidence suggests that a proposition is true while much of the evidence suggests an alternative proposition is true, then the first proposition is unlikely to be true.
"Unlikely to be true" isn't the same as "proven negative." When discussing logic, "proof" has a specific meaning.
That said, your example/reasoning is mistaken, but you're underlying point is not. It is sometimes possible to prove a negative by contradiction (proving that the affirmative is impossible).
They are well-supported by established evidence
You might have a point, if the internet ^Wworld didn't have an abundant supply of nitwits willing to ignore any and all evidence that might conflict with their "individual" world view.
Deluge likes to use random ports
Edit->preferences->Network, uncheck "Use Random Ports" and it will let you specify a port range, old-school style.
They made threats against her. Yes. That is a real crime. Threats are a crime. People seem to forget that, but it doesn't change the law.
I'm pretty sure that most jurisdictions limit it to credible threats being crimes. People forget that part, even more often.
You're blaming him for your lack of willpower?
It's called a joke.
What, do you reinstall Deus Ex every time someone mentions that game too?
...
Goddamn it...
Blocked in the US (shocker) but no worries. I have it on my NAS. Thank you, though.
No, I meant I blame him that I'm going to spend the evening watching a movie with Steve Guttenberg in it.
He might have had a male mentality, but he wasn't humanoid. He was basically a tall WALL-E. "Closer than R2D2" still leaves a lot of ground to cover. :D
Johnny 5 was a sentient robot, not an android (not human-shaped).
Dammit, now I have to find the HDD with that movie on it. I blame you.
Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!
They voted whether to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. And they eschewed some of the restrictions, like TFA said, so if you want to know then GOOGLE THE FUCKING LAW. The new restrictions are a subset of that.
Christ, people just spew shit out and don't even bother TRYING to inform themselves.
I'm glad to see at least one other person on a supposedly "technical" website has the first fucking clue what Title II is.
Your hatred of Comcast and fear of what it might do has lead to the biggest restrictions on freedom since the Patriot Act
Your sense of reality needs to be rebooted. "Might do?" They've been doing it openly, for a couple of years now, you twit. You're the one pissing your panties over imaginary "might do" and using bullshit conspiracy theorist "reasoning". Look up how much censorship power Title II gave over landlines, for starters.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You need your dosage upped.
I wouldn't call it a "mass exodus." The most popular subverse is "News" with just over 3k subscribers, and there's obviously going to be people on both.
Which isn't to say that I hope it (or another site) doesn't succeed. This picture thing, in spite of all the headlines it's getting, is really a nothing in the ocean of dumbfuckery that's been going on at reddit for the past couple of years (The latest apparently being "gold-only" subreddits).
Someone already has (before this started). Can't remember the domain, though. Started with a V. If I come across it I'll post back.
I just hope they keep the code in place so RES can work.
reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
The owner of an image and the subject in the image are not necessarily the same person. This has nothing to do with "rightful owners."
Mice are all fuckers.
The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?
You actually need to show that "the whole point of [low-intensity violence] is to show the victim's body is the perpetrator's possession" first. Once you manage to establish that as something other than bullshit, then I'll take the onus from there. Good luck.