Do you really think game developers need Zampolits ?
Here in the real world (as opposed to the GG fantasy world), that is not going to happen. The reason why I know that it's not going to happen is that it hasn't happened in any other artform. Michael Bay and E.L. James are rich, and you and I are not.
The price to pay for being recognised as "art" or "culture" is that you are no longer exempt from cultural criticism. People complain about Fifty Shades of Grey, but nobody has shut it down and nobody can shut it down. It doesn't matter how shitty your taste is,
GG is basically the same as those US religious right fundamentalists with the persecution complex. You know, how public health or same-sex marriage is "persecution", or an "assault"? It doesn't matter how much Franklin Graham blusters about that, the fact is that nobody in power has shut down the Westboro Baptist Church, and they are much more extreme than he is.
To complete the analogy, in the USA, if you are a self-identified Christian, the person who is most likely to persecute you is another American who also identifies themselves as a "Christian". The big threat to gamers and games is not some hypothetical SJW conspiracy, it is GamerGate and the cynical opportunists like Beale who are using it for their own personal power trips. They are the only ones who have the proven ability and willingness to turn fandom against itself.
I mean it's not like officers of large publishers didn't have a vitriolic reaction to Beale taking away their toy.
I note that Gallo's employer had to react due to fear of retaliation by the puppies. I'm not sure what this link was trying to prove.
Point taken on Patrick Neilsen Hayden; I hadn't seen that story before. It's fair to say that he did not "create" Vox Day; that's the sort of conclusion that someone who didn't pay attention to GamerGate could come to.
Ultimately, everything that Beale touches turns to shit, and that's the way he likes it. His MO is the same as petty tyrants everywhere: convince the disaffected that the enemy is just over there, then divide and conquer. No truer words were spoken than Les Murray in his famous haiku: "Brutal policy, / like inferior art, knows / whose fault it all is."
Not content with declaring war on gamers, he's decided to declare war on SFF now. Vitriolic reactions are not okay, not only because it's unbecoming, but because that's precisely what Beale is trying to engineer.
Kary English's sentiment was pretty much identical:
The Hugos should represent all voices, so if Sad Puppies is about drawing attention to works that might otherwise be overlooked, I can support that and I’m happy to stand for it. But if it’s about shutting out other voices and other work, if it’s about politics or pissing off certain segments of fandom, that’s not something I can get behind.
The whole point of fandom is that our love for the genre unites us. It’s about having a place where genre is paramount, where literature comes first. So if that’s who you are, and that’s what you want, then I’m with you. That’s why I invited everyone to talk about books here on my blog.
But if you’re in this with some other agenda, take it elsewhere. I don’t want to be part of it.
No fear of being a target, just no desire to be a pawn in someone's political game.
What Annie Bellet actually said: "I love the Hugo Awards. To be nominated was awesome. But I’m a writer. That’s what I want my public face to be. I don’t want people to think of me as some political figure, or some ball in the political game."
It's clear that hypothetical retaliation was not in her thinking.
Rather than a debate of the reasons and merits for the decision to not award the Hugos, there is pages of personal attack on the nature of argument fallacy. Why?
Because some moron decided that Breitbart was the best source of information about this issues, and most likely no editor was following the story closely enough to understand the issue and pick a submission with more even-handed sources.
Oh, wait. That is a good reason to leave Slashdot. Enjoy!
This story is a perfect example. Hugo Awards voters overwhelmingly voted "no award" in most of the categories where the puppies gamed the nomination process. Breitbart spun this as a "social justice warrior onslaught" rather than rank-and-file voters objecting to abuse of process.
See also: Pretty much any Breitbart story about GamerGate.
No, it really doesn't. It may provide women with some transitory security as far as child rearing goes but to claim monogamy is the de facto best option is a sorry punchline.
"Best" is a value judgment, so I'm not going to go there. But is it so hard to believe that some people like monogamy and have found a partner who is good enough to be monogamous with?
Hell, monogamy could be thought of as a sexual orientation.
We've already derailed the discussion of Go too much, and I'm not going to push it further by explaining how art works.
But if it helps, consider that the word "troll" used to mean something specific, too. In the days of Usenet, trolling was considered an artform. It was the art of extracting specific responses from specific groups by the use of carefully-constructed text. The best trolls were legends. Now, it refers to brain-dead threats, defacing, disruption, and doxxing. The art of the troll is dead, thanks to psychopaths.
One huge trend in work over the last century or so has been towards automation. We need fewer people, or can do more with the same number of people, by automating some or all of peoples' jobs.
We don't need everyone to "build software" as you may think of it. However, we do need a substantial part of the workforce to automate their own jobs. Think about it. For most typical jobs, the ability to automate your work makes you more productive, more valuable, and can make you feel better about your life.
Automation, of course, means instructing machines.
Unless something new has happened in the last decade, the only source leaks I'm aware of are NT4 and Win2k. So if you were willing to do without x86-64, most of ACPI, UEFI, IPv6, and pretty much every piece of hardware on your motherboard, I guess you could use that.
You can probably live without Metro, so there is that.
I hope you caught that the word "simply" in my post was flippant.
My point is a simple one: compared to other countries, the US health care system does not get anywhere near the value for money that other countries do. It spends far more and gets far less in return.
You could think up many possibilities as to why this is, and I'm sure that a lot of it is waste due to medical businesses (e.g. insurers) being run for-profit. But I think it's pretty clear to all sane people that you don't just cut funding and hope everything works out.
One possibility as to why the US spends so much more is that the whole system is not geared to preventative medicine. By far, the cheapest time to fix a medical condition is before it becomes serious, and uninsured and under-insured patients tend to only present after a condition has become serious.
What public service in the US do you think your new healthcare system is going to resemble.
In the US? Don't know. I was thinking something more like the NHS or Medicare Australia.
We spend about 834 billion a year on government healthcare subsidies.
Actually, plenty of people do want to cut that budget, but can't for ideological reasons.
The US spends just over 17% of GDP on health care, which is a figure only exceeded by Tuvalu. Most developed countries (e.g. most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan) the figure is around 9-10% of GDP. Even France spends less than 12%.
So, yes, you could cut that figure by a third simply by building a real public health system.
I don't know if Obamacare has helped or will help in any significant way. Given that the AMA supported it, probably not.
Your notion that people win these elections based on how many people they throw in jail or something [...]
I said that they run their campaigns on that basis, not that they win on that basis. You are almost certainly correct that in most "races" there is basically no contest worth speaking of, and the electors have no clue what's going on and don't care. Nonetheless, I went through a phase a little while ago where I looked up campaign ads, and every single one was about this.
So I think it's fair to say that when it's a fought campaign, that's what the campaign tends to be on. Whether or not it helps is another question.
I don't mind the secrecy IN THAT CONTEXT.
The alternative, incidentally, is committal hearings, which are mini-court trials, with all the advantages that go with it (e.g. both legal teams are present, protection from self-incrimination).
No, sorry, I don't see your point. I claimed that the Weimar Republic had tougher restrictions on guns than the Nazi government. What you posted said pretty much exactly that, only with more detail.
Elected judges was an attempt to put the judiciary under some kind of democratic control.
Perhaps that was even a good idea before the days of mass media. Today, judges run their campaigns on how many criminals they put away, not on how well they decide the law.
It's a similar story with elected prosecutors. In Australia, Aaron Swartz would still be alive.
As to grand juries... explain your problem there, I can't even anticipate what your issue is there.
Let me put it this way: Hope that you never end up before a grand jury. It operates behind closed doors. You cannot read a transcript of proceedings. You have no right to counsel and no protection from self-incrimination. You may be compelled to testify and compelled to produce documents. And judges do not run the show; most of the time, prosecutors do.
The running joke is that they would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor wanted to. A wrongdoer will also walk free of the prosecutor wants that, too. (Remember, prosecutors rely on election campaigns for their job; that is often a good incentive not to prosecute someone.)
As to plea bargaining, bullshit... every legal system has that to some extent.
The "extent" being that its scope is limited to the point where it can't be used as a tool of coercion.
The point I'm making is that being that the US has democracy as a theoretical tool to curb malfeasance by people who wield the power of the government, but in practice it doesn't seem to work; either electors don't care, or they are persuaded to care about things which are not relevant. Australia, instead, has laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the real world (as opposed to the GG fantasy world), that is not going to happen. The reason why I know that it's not going to happen is that it hasn't happened in any other artform. Michael Bay and E.L. James are rich, and you and I are not.
The price to pay for being recognised as "art" or "culture" is that you are no longer exempt from cultural criticism. People complain about Fifty Shades of Grey, but nobody has shut it down and nobody can shut it down. It doesn't matter how shitty your taste is,
GG is basically the same as those US religious right fundamentalists with the persecution complex. You know, how public health or same-sex marriage is "persecution", or an "assault"? It doesn't matter how much Franklin Graham blusters about that, the fact is that nobody in power has shut down the Westboro Baptist Church, and they are much more extreme than he is.
To complete the analogy, in the USA, if you are a self-identified Christian, the person who is most likely to persecute you is another American who also identifies themselves as a "Christian". The big threat to gamers and games is not some hypothetical SJW conspiracy, it is GamerGate and the cynical opportunists like Beale who are using it for their own personal power trips. They are the only ones who have the proven ability and willingness to turn fandom against itself.
I note that Gallo's employer had to react due to fear of retaliation by the puppies. I'm not sure what this link was trying to prove.
Point taken on Patrick Neilsen Hayden; I hadn't seen that story before. It's fair to say that he did not "create" Vox Day; that's the sort of conclusion that someone who didn't pay attention to GamerGate could come to.
Ultimately, everything that Beale touches turns to shit, and that's the way he likes it. His MO is the same as petty tyrants everywhere: convince the disaffected that the enemy is just over there, then divide and conquer. No truer words were spoken than Les Murray in his famous haiku: "Brutal policy, / like inferior art, knows / whose fault it all is."
Not content with declaring war on gamers, he's decided to declare war on SFF now. Vitriolic reactions are not okay, not only because it's unbecoming, but because that's precisely what Beale is trying to engineer.
Kary English's sentiment was pretty much identical:
No fear of being a target, just no desire to be a pawn in someone's political game.
None, and no intention of doing so. Why do you ask?
Oh, wait, I know. Because the grand conspiracy theory is secretly all about money.
Still, at least Brianna Wu is producing something. I hope you didn't sink any money into The Sarkeesian Effect.
I was merely agreeing that "unproven" and "false" are not synonyms. The same is true of "true" and "proven".
What Annie Bellet actually said: "I love the Hugo Awards. To be nominated was awesome. But I’m a writer. That’s what I want my public face to be. I don’t want people to think of me as some political figure, or some ball in the political game."
It's clear that hypothetical retaliation was not in her thinking.
their method requires [...] no foaming at the mouth.
I'll believe that if they every try doing it that way.
The only block that existed was the NA block, because there's no way to argue that was not political.
Nobody is denying that a vote against nomination stacking isn't political, merely that it's not evidence of a "SJW voting bloc".
Of course it's political. The puppies set out to ensure that no matter what happened in this year's Hugos, it would be political. Job done.
Rather than a debate of the reasons and merits for the decision to not award the Hugos, there is pages of personal attack on the nature of argument fallacy. Why?
Because some moron decided that Breitbart was the best source of information about this issues, and most likely no editor was following the story closely enough to understand the issue and pick a submission with more even-handed sources.
Oh, wait. That is a good reason to leave Slashdot. Enjoy!
This story is a perfect example. Hugo Awards voters overwhelmingly voted "no award" in most of the categories where the puppies gamed the nomination process. Breitbart spun this as a "social justice warrior onslaught" rather than rank-and-file voters objecting to abuse of process.
See also: Pretty much any Breitbart story about GamerGate.
"These people have a track record of saying nothing of value" is factual in the case of Breitbart. No reasoning required, it's just an observation.
Unproven: not a synonymn for false.
If your making a point it most certainly is. It brands the person using faulty logic a fool or a manipulator.
You've never studied intuitionistic logic, have you?
Anyone who plays the game of "spot the logical fallacy" has almost certainly never studied critical thinking.
No, it really doesn't. It may provide women with some transitory security as far as child rearing goes but to claim monogamy is the de facto best option is a sorry punchline.
"Best" is a value judgment, so I'm not going to go there. But is it so hard to believe that some people like monogamy and have found a partner who is good enough to be monogamous with?
Hell, monogamy could be thought of as a sexual orientation.
We've already derailed the discussion of Go too much, and I'm not going to push it further by explaining how art works.
But if it helps, consider that the word "troll" used to mean something specific, too. In the days of Usenet, trolling was considered an artform. It was the art of extracting specific responses from specific groups by the use of carefully-constructed text. The best trolls were legends. Now, it refers to brain-dead threats, defacing, disruption, and doxxing. The art of the troll is dead, thanks to psychopaths.
No, it doesn't. It used to describe a certain kind of shallow Internet-only meme propagator. GG uses it to refer to professional cultural critics.
FWIW, "radical feminist" used to mean something, too.
The term "SJW" actually used to mean something before GamerGate came along.
Unfortunately, OpenGL sucks even harder. About the only thing it has going for it is compatibility, and on Windows, it doesn't even have that.
All the smart game devs are waiting for Vulkan.
One huge trend in work over the last century or so has been towards automation. We need fewer people, or can do more with the same number of people, by automating some or all of peoples' jobs.
We don't need everyone to "build software" as you may think of it. However, we do need a substantial part of the workforce to automate their own jobs. Think about it. For most typical jobs, the ability to automate your work makes you more productive, more valuable, and can make you feel better about your life.
Automation, of course, means instructing machines.
The Pirate Bay allows you to skip the red tape.
Unless something new has happened in the last decade, the only source leaks I'm aware of are NT4 and Win2k. So if you were willing to do without x86-64, most of ACPI, UEFI, IPv6, and pretty much every piece of hardware on your motherboard, I guess you could use that.
You can probably live without Metro, so there is that.
I hope you caught that the word "simply" in my post was flippant.
My point is a simple one: compared to other countries, the US health care system does not get anywhere near the value for money that other countries do. It spends far more and gets far less in return.
You could think up many possibilities as to why this is, and I'm sure that a lot of it is waste due to medical businesses (e.g. insurers) being run for-profit. But I think it's pretty clear to all sane people that you don't just cut funding and hope everything works out.
One possibility as to why the US spends so much more is that the whole system is not geared to preventative medicine. By far, the cheapest time to fix a medical condition is before it becomes serious, and uninsured and under-insured patients tend to only present after a condition has become serious.
In the US? Don't know. I was thinking something more like the NHS or Medicare Australia.
Actually, plenty of people do want to cut that budget, but can't for ideological reasons.
The US spends just over 17% of GDP on health care, which is a figure only exceeded by Tuvalu. Most developed countries (e.g. most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan) the figure is around 9-10% of GDP. Even France spends less than 12%.
So, yes, you could cut that figure by a third simply by building a real public health system.
I don't know if Obamacare has helped or will help in any significant way. Given that the AMA supported it, probably not.
I said that they run their campaigns on that basis, not that they win on that basis. You are almost certainly correct that in most "races" there is basically no contest worth speaking of, and the electors have no clue what's going on and don't care. Nonetheless, I went through a phase a little while ago where I looked up campaign ads, and every single one was about this.
So I think it's fair to say that when it's a fought campaign, that's what the campaign tends to be on. Whether or not it helps is another question.
The alternative, incidentally, is committal hearings, which are mini-court trials, with all the advantages that go with it (e.g. both legal teams are present, protection from self-incrimination).
No, sorry, I don't see your point. I claimed that the Weimar Republic had tougher restrictions on guns than the Nazi government. What you posted said pretty much exactly that, only with more detail.
Perhaps that was even a good idea before the days of mass media. Today, judges run their campaigns on how many criminals they put away, not on how well they decide the law.
It's a similar story with elected prosecutors. In Australia, Aaron Swartz would still be alive.
Let me put it this way: Hope that you never end up before a grand jury. It operates behind closed doors. You cannot read a transcript of proceedings. You have no right to counsel and no protection from self-incrimination. You may be compelled to testify and compelled to produce documents. And judges do not run the show; most of the time, prosecutors do.
The running joke is that they would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor wanted to. A wrongdoer will also walk free of the prosecutor wants that, too. (Remember, prosecutors rely on election campaigns for their job; that is often a good incentive not to prosecute someone.)
The "extent" being that its scope is limited to the point where it can't be used as a tool of coercion.
The point I'm making is that being that the US has democracy as a theoretical tool to curb malfeasance by people who wield the power of the government, but in practice it doesn't seem to work; either electors don't care, or they are persuaded to care about things which are not relevant. Australia, instead, has laws.