Incidentally, just to head off this objection: GGers managed to dig up a video of Anita Sarkeesian saying that she didn't like modern warfare-type shooters, and somehow spun this into an "admission" that she wasn't really a gamer.
FWIW, I don't like the endless parade of Battlecall: Field of Duty clones either.
What are you specifically trying to communicate with that label?
As I explained in that last sentence (which you may have missed), I am trying to communicate the fact that as an outsider (to both sides), I can't tell who is "in" Gamergate and who is "out". The only piece of information I have is who uses the hashtag, and literally anyone can use that. Even among the high-profile people who are commonly associated with the movement, it's often hard to tell if they're in or out (e.g. Aurini).
The reason why "Gamergate fanboy" is because there are more of those than there are drive-by trolls, which is the only sane alternative. But I do concede that drive-by trolls exist. (The usually-posited alternative, that of "false flag" operations, is quite frankly off the deep end, and most mainstream Gamergaters wisely don't engage in that particular piece of projection.)
On the other side it's a little easier to tell who's "in" in many cases, because if someone is a target of Gamergate, they're almost certainly "in".
In this thread, I have consistently used phrases like "Gamergate fanboy" because, as an outsider to both sides of this fiasco, I can't tell who is "in" and who is "out", and it seems to change by the month. (A few MRAs were "in" for a while, and now they're "out", for example.)
It's a similar problem for the other side, BTW. Apart from some of the standard GG targets, it's sometimes hard to tell who is a legitimate cultural critic, who is a feminist looking in from the outside, who is an innocent party caught in the crossfire, and who is a SJW.
To add to what the AC posted, why would you say that about the Gamergaters, after all, they care about ethics in game journalism, it is the anti-GG side that wants to be everyone's thought police so they can determine what is right and wrong and how you should think.
As an outsider (outside both sides of this shitstorm, I might add, but I'm going to concentrate on one side here because you already know the arguments on the other side), I find it hard to tell the difference between Gamergaters, their fanboys, and everyone else (e.g. MRAs) who claim some adherence to the hashtag. So while it may well be true that Gamergaters (appropriately defined) don't engage in trolling, harassment, doxing, and so on, the hashtag attracts a lot of people who do, and they seem to attract a lot more than the other side seems to.
There's also a lot of "thought police" accusation to share around. A lot of people who used the hashtag (and once again, I'm not claiming anything more than "they used the hashtag") really seemed to believe that games like Depression Quest should not exist at all, or that gaming trade rags should play by different rules than trade rags in other industries, or that video games are a unique artform which should be immune from the type of criticism that other cultural artefacts get. Trying to shut down cultural criticism is the stupidest kind of thought policing because it's so self-defeating.
Spinning this hack as bad for Gamergate requires some desperate mental gymnastics.
Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing, and whether or not you are doxxed does not depend on whether or not you are a journalist or donator to journalists; just ask Felicia Day.
(I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)
It doesn't matter if the fructose comes from HFCS, sugar, or fruit, it's unhealthy to consume it....but fuck you if you say anything bad about fruit, as it is the icon for healthy eating, as it's the only source of addictive fructose that those natural foods types get and they sure as hell don't want to give it up.
At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between fruit and fruit juice. Juicing has the effect of concentrating the sugar and diluting or removing the parts of the fruit which make it worth eating (e.g. vitamins, fibre, antioxidants if you buy that argument).
Despite popular belief, trees don't create fruit because they love us and would never do anything to harm us, they're just doing whatever helps them to survive, [...]
Actually, a lot of fruit is made for us, in that it's the product of many generations of artificial selection. The ones that aren't are usually clones (e.g. grafts) of the small number of varieties that humans like.
Mexico has VERY strict rules / laws about who can own a firearm and what type.
It doesn't seem to deter much of the homicides by firearm there now does it ?
To be fair, almost all of those guns used to commit homicides in Mexico are smuggled across the border from the US. The high firearm homicide rate in Mexico isn't entirely Mexico's fault.
An innocent person who has the means to get good lawyers can't be sent to prison based on NSA-provided data by itself. If you're willing to spend the time and lose a large chunk of your life in the process, you can probably make it go away eventually. Being sent to prison is hardly the only way that a government agency can harass you.
And reference counting has been known to be a terrible garbage collection technique for four decades.
More accurately, it was a terrible garbage collection technique four decades ago, in an era when the disparity between RAM and cache wasn't as large as it is today, when multicore wasn't common, and when compilers weren't as clever as they are now. Today, it's a surprisingly competitive technique.
Modern compilers can go to a lot of trouble to avoid manipulating reference counts when it's not needed, and can use static type information to prove that some data structures are acyclic. Of course, in C++, that last point isn't even an issue, since the programmer gets to control when reference counts get manipulated.
As Drew Richardson points out in his affidavit, someone who knows more about the process is more likely to fail. Fear of being caught in a lie and fear of being caught in a false positive are indistinguishable as far as the polygraph is concerned. Knowing that the false positive rate is absurdly high makes it worse for you.
Slashdot Mirror
MGTOW would be more appropriate in this context.
(Unless you were referring to CAN bit timing?)
linux-4.0$ find . -type f | xargs grep -i garrett | wc -l
37
HTH
I can guess the Country of Origin of their Americans.
Incidentally, just to head off this objection: GGers managed to dig up a video of Anita Sarkeesian saying that she didn't like modern warfare-type shooters, and somehow spun this into an "admission" that she wasn't really a gamer.
FWIW, I don't like the endless parade of Battlecall: Field of Duty clones either.
As I explained in that last sentence (which you may have missed), I am trying to communicate the fact that as an outsider (to both sides), I can't tell who is "in" Gamergate and who is "out". The only piece of information I have is who uses the hashtag, and literally anyone can use that. Even among the high-profile people who are commonly associated with the movement, it's often hard to tell if they're in or out (e.g. Aurini).
The reason why "Gamergate fanboy" is because there are more of those than there are drive-by trolls, which is the only sane alternative. But I do concede that drive-by trolls exist. (The usually-posited alternative, that of "false flag" operations, is quite frankly off the deep end, and most mainstream Gamergaters wisely don't engage in that particular piece of projection.)
On the other side it's a little easier to tell who's "in" in many cases, because if someone is a target of Gamergate, they're almost certainly "in".
In this thread, I have consistently used phrases like "Gamergate fanboy" because, as an outsider to both sides of this fiasco, I can't tell who is "in" and who is "out", and it seems to change by the month. (A few MRAs were "in" for a while, and now they're "out", for example.)
It's a similar problem for the other side, BTW. Apart from some of the standard GG targets, it's sometimes hard to tell who is a legitimate cultural critic, who is a feminist looking in from the outside, who is an innocent party caught in the crossfire, and who is a SJW.
To add to what the AC posted, why would you say that about the Gamergaters, after all, they care about ethics in game journalism, it is the anti-GG side that wants to be everyone's thought police so they can determine what is right and wrong and how you should think.
As an outsider (outside both sides of this shitstorm, I might add, but I'm going to concentrate on one side here because you already know the arguments on the other side), I find it hard to tell the difference between Gamergaters, their fanboys, and everyone else (e.g. MRAs) who claim some adherence to the hashtag. So while it may well be true that Gamergaters (appropriately defined) don't engage in trolling, harassment, doxing, and so on, the hashtag attracts a lot of people who do, and they seem to attract a lot more than the other side seems to.
There's also a lot of "thought police" accusation to share around. A lot of people who used the hashtag (and once again, I'm not claiming anything more than "they used the hashtag") really seemed to believe that games like Depression Quest should not exist at all, or that gaming trade rags should play by different rules than trade rags in other industries, or that video games are a unique artform which should be immune from the type of criticism that other cultural artefacts get. Trying to shut down cultural criticism is the stupidest kind of thought policing because it's so self-defeating.
I personally define a SJW to be akin to a witch hunter.
Yup, yet another personal definition of "SJW" which doesn't match the original intended definition. The term "SJW" is responsible for more muddle-headed thinking than anything else I've seen lately.
Spinning this hack as bad for Gamergate requires some desperate mental gymnastics.
Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing, and whether or not you are doxxed does not depend on whether or not you are a journalist or donator to journalists; just ask Felicia Day.
(I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)
If you donate to anything that gamergate doesn't like, hold on tight, because you're in for a bumpy ride.
It doesn't matter if the fructose comes from HFCS, sugar, or fruit, it's unhealthy to consume it. ...but fuck you if you say anything bad about fruit, as it is the icon for healthy eating, as it's the only source of addictive fructose that those natural foods types get and they sure as hell don't want to give it up.
At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between fruit and fruit juice. Juicing has the effect of concentrating the sugar and diluting or removing the parts of the fruit which make it worth eating (e.g. vitamins, fibre, antioxidants if you buy that argument).
Despite popular belief, trees don't create fruit because they love us and would never do anything to harm us, they're just doing whatever helps them to survive, [...]
Actually, a lot of fruit is made for us, in that it's the product of many generations of artificial selection. The ones that aren't are usually clones (e.g. grafts) of the small number of varieties that humans like.
It very much depends where you live. Some municipal supplies are better than others, and some plumbing is better than others.
I couldn't drink the tap water unfiltered in my previous house. I moved 2km, and it's great in the new place.
"The French must be absolutely pissing themselves, that's probably what gives the stuff its acrid taste." -- Ben Elton
There is no GPL3 code in anything I've touched [...]
Good. You shouldn't be profiteering off other peoples' hard work if they don't want you to.
No, they meant "kunstmatige". "Artificial" is a more accurate translation than "humanmade" or "manmade".
Mexico has VERY strict rules / laws about who can own a firearm and what type.
It doesn't seem to deter much of the homicides by firearm there now does it ?
To be fair, almost all of those guns used to commit homicides in Mexico are smuggled across the border from the US. The high firearm homicide rate in Mexico isn't entirely Mexico's fault.
Guns don't kill people, Americans do.
NSA-provided data has not been — and can not be, not by itself, anyway — used to frame an innocent person.
You say that like innocent people aren't coerced into taking plea bargains or coerced into becoming government informants all the time.
An innocent person who has the means to get good lawyers can't be sent to prison based on NSA-provided data by itself. If you're willing to spend the time and lose a large chunk of your life in the process, you can probably make it go away eventually. Being sent to prison is hardly the only way that a government agency can harass you.
Remember the FBI's hamfisted attempt to blackmail MLK? He wasn't guilty of a crime, but that didn't matter.
A module system, and a mathematically sound object system (like O'Caml, Haskell, etc).
Yet still no modules.
One of these days, Stroustrup will realise (like Stepanov did) that Simula's object model was a mistake.
And reference counting has been known to be a terrible garbage collection technique for four decades.
More accurately, it was a terrible garbage collection technique four decades ago, in an era when the disparity between RAM and cache wasn't as large as it is today, when multicore wasn't common, and when compilers weren't as clever as they are now. Today, it's a surprisingly competitive technique.
Modern compilers can go to a lot of trouble to avoid manipulating reference counts when it's not needed, and can use static type information to prove that some data structures are acyclic. Of course, in C++, that last point isn't even an issue, since the programmer gets to control when reference counts get manipulated.
They are just chicken-shit scared of Swift, Rust and Sappeur.
The language that everyone hates is not scared of the languages that nobody uses.
As Drew Richardson points out in his affidavit, someone who knows more about the process is more likely to fail. Fear of being caught in a lie and fear of being caught in a false positive are indistinguishable as far as the polygraph is concerned. Knowing that the false positive rate is absurdly high makes it worse for you.
Linux gaming is a niche, why would anyone care about BSD gaming? Niche of a niche.
You'd be surprised at the number of games that have been ported to Orbis OS, which is a fork of FreeBSD.