I just get conflicted that I've wanted to see my female friends' breasts for years, but this is "perverted". However suddenly they post pictures of them to Facebook.
I'm sure some of you half-men are leaping to accuse me of being ignorant. Please proceed. I'm not sure that I am though. Frankly to me this all stinks of women being women. To them everything is "different", and men are all just perverts because we find their various bits attractive.
I don't find the act of breast feeding attractive I guess I should disclaim. Much like I'm sure a woman wouldn't find a picture of me flexing, and lifting a fire ladder, while urinating attractive I guess. However this doesn't mean I'd post said picture on Facebook.
Even if I could somehow associate urinating with something meaningful like child rearing.
Which I can't. But still my point is sound. They are breasts. Just because a child is attached doesn't change that fact. It is basically irrelevant if it makes you angry or not or whether you feel the sexualisation of breasts is somehow man's fault (what isn't man's fault nowadays exactly?) Accept it and the consequences are much easier to come to terms with.
My penis also can be used for urination, thus I should be able to do it in public. Of course I would only do it into the drain. Urine on the street isn't nice. But I should be able to do it without people being all upset about it. After all it's natural man. I drink. I pee.
I'm actually fine with public breast feeding, I just had to point out your stupid argument.
Penis is analogous to vagina. Vagina is has as many returns with safesearch on as penis does.
IMO the reason clitoris is not fine is because women are prudish about it and they cause the hoo-haa. It is not a fucking misogynistic thing. And frankly I think people like you who think it are a a fucking disgrace.
That's not that I won't here a good argument to the contrary. It's just I haven't yet heard one.
The problem with treating men and women's chests as equal is that men don't have breasts.
Thus demanding equality in this context is somewhat impossible.
To some extent I agree a man's chest is sexual and so if a man can do it, a woman should be able to as well. But realistically breasts are far more sexual as far as English-speaking culture is concerned.
I'm not sure if a man's chest can ever be less sexual, even if we become more tolerant of them.
Just think of sexually-provocative silhouettes. Part of a woman's appealing curves are her breasts. Women know this and show them in their best lights to their advantage.
Frankly I can't shake the general believe that women who demand the right to bare their breasts in public in fact are just the kinds of women who will not be happy no matter what ideals of feminism are set into law.
Apple are bad, but I can't see how they are as bad.
For instance, iPod came out with MP3 support. Microsoft never would have done that. They did with Zune of course, but they had to compete with iPod by that point and could hardly release something half featured relative to the competition.
For instance Apple used KHTML rather than try to make some proprietary crap lock-in facilitating browser.
Sure Apple want to lock you into Apple products, but they aren't as bad as historically Microsoft have been.
Seriously, it's taken Facebook three years to overtake Myspace. I can't see anyone beating back Facebook anytime soon. There isn't any other serious competitors out there. Bebo could be considered competition, but it just doesn't have any hook that will propel it beyond Facebook.
Facebook has triumphed over Myspace in the social space because it reflects what people want from a social site better. Privacy. Communication. Voyeurism. Connections that are real, not a representation of how popular they want to appear. The home page alone is amazing for keeping up with friends and their lives, and it shows in their page views, and stickiness. People literally spend all day with the Facebook homepage open in one of their tabs.
Until something beats all these things, nobody is jumping ship. The userbase is just too huge now, it is no longer merely geeks looking for the newest toy. It's people who actually find the site useful. They are much harder to steal.
Facebook have picked up some of the most talented developers in Silicon Valley, it really shows.
I happen to know some of the aces Facebook has up its sleeves in the months ahead too. They may well double their theoretical valuations again.
All the usability testing I've read suggests people find the new Office very intuitive. What a lot of hot air you just expelled.
Pretty much every one of your points is fairly bogus. it doesn't matter if the buttons are different shapes, it only matters if people can tell where it's edges are, and that it's a button. Etc.
You have a point that some things are hard to find, but well, I don't think the old menu system was any better.
This is all m00t anyway since it's obvious the future is web apps.
As a result, we (Last.fm) only support ubuntu and, for people who compile the tarball, we only support compile errors and bugs that are obviously our own fault.
For me the series was awful, and the movie just bad.
I assume I'm thinking of the right series? Where Paul was a dick, didn't love Channi and wanted to get jiggy with Princess Irulan?
I'm not entirely sure how Herbert was involved in the movie's production, yet it seemed to miss the point, but at least he was involved, and this may be why I prefer it to the series.
I've been an Amarok developer for 3 years, and I'd like to comment.
Amarok beats iTunes in quite a few ways; eg. wikipedia artist-lookup, lyrics lookup, suggesting music from you collection for you to play next, last.fm integration, cover downloads, playback formats supported, etc. Certainly we have every feature iTunes has except a music store. And we have patches to allow purchases from Magnatune sitting on the mailing list.
We aren't as simple as iTunes. Out interface shines in some areas, like our drag and drop focus, simple toolbars and browser metaphor, but is hacked together and complex in other areas. In many ways this is a symptom of open source development, but we do have a focus on making our interface easy to learn and uncluttered, and I'm sure this has helped us to become popular on Linux.
At the end of the day iTunes is targeted at different people. Can a music player that supports multiple audio backends and multiple database backends ever be as simple as one that comes with them built in and mostly unconfigurable? Yes, you can hide that stuff in an options dialog. But no you'll still have a system that is more difficult to make bug-free, and that has more potential for strange behaviour.
If you put the time in, Amarok beats everything else out there; we've put the time in to ensure that. But it isn't there yet, in terms of catering to the iTunes demographic. And I'm not sure we really want to do that anyway.
If anything our focus for Amarok 2 makes us even less like iTunes, and perhaps not in a general appeal kind of way. But if you like music, and have a lot of it, you'll love Amarok 2. It's not ready yet though..;)
I'd go wherever I thought was the nicest place that wasn't pricing things so far that I felt it wasn't so nice.
I don't go to the cheapest place in town as generally it's a shithole, and I don't go to the most expensive place in town because generally I feel ripped off and it's bad value for money. I go someplace inbetween.
I think most people are like me, but since you've been modded up and I haven't, perhaps I am wrong.
I play lots of multiplayer, I've hardly come across any "kiddies", almost everyone I've played with is twenty-something. I think it helps to pick the right zone, recreation is not full of kids.
As other people say reputation helps people are less likely to be a dick due to the lack of anonymity. It seems.
Without HD it's just like any other games console. Looks fine.
In fact the move to HD is not that important, TV has looked photorealistic at SD resolutions for years. Things look great in HD sure, but the Xbox can't really take advantage of it since it supports SD too, ie, you can't use smaller text as SD won't show it legibily.
The biggest issue IMO is the price, but after I'd played my mate's I knew I wanted one. The Live features are innovative and fun.
You won't regret it, gamerpoints and achievements alone make games last about 3 times as long. The arcade is full of relatively cheap stuff that is good for short sessions.
Xbox 360 is great because of gamerpoints and achievements and Live. Gamerpoints are rewards for achievements in games, getting all 1000 points made hitman last about 5 weeks longer for me as I scrambled around in their pursuit.
Live is like PC multiplayer with less arseholes, and more people it's fun to play with. Mainly due to headsets and reputation that is linked to your gamertag. The fact you can talk to people in every game by default is a huge plus.
All I miss from PC gaming is FPSs with mouse, but I don't play multiplayer fps on the xbox. Most console games are going third person now, which works well on console, and can't be emulated on pc without, say too mice, or two joysticks.
I dunno, things are looking pretty photorealistic next gen.
Check Crysis and Gears of War.
The issue now is more making the animation look realistic. Which may well take a few more years.
Videos of Crysis look damn good for animation though.
Re:Don't Bother With The 360 Version
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 1
There are a number of videos on google video that suggest it will indeed look that good. But google video is hard to judge since it looks pretty blurry.
Notably the trailer looks as good as the screens you tend to see, but in a few sections of the trailer, it looks average, suggesting that the trailer is in engine, and looks that good.
It uses the unreal engine, so I'm fairly sure it'll look just as good on PC, if you have the write bits and pieces.
Re:Don't Bother With The 360 Version
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 1
Check out gears of war screenshots for examples of what the 360 can do when people program for all 3 cores and the gpu.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that if I walked around with my penis out dragging around a mutilated corpse and you looked at it, it would be your fault?
You suck.
I just get conflicted that I've wanted to see my female friends' breasts for years, but this is "perverted". However suddenly they post pictures of them to Facebook.
I'm sure some of you half-men are leaping to accuse me of being ignorant. Please proceed. I'm not sure that I am though. Frankly to me this all stinks of women being women. To them everything is "different", and men are all just perverts because we find their various bits attractive.
I don't find the act of breast feeding attractive I guess I should disclaim. Much like I'm sure a woman wouldn't find a picture of me flexing, and lifting a fire ladder, while urinating attractive I guess. However this doesn't mean I'd post said picture on Facebook.
Even if I could somehow associate urinating with something meaningful like child rearing.
Which I can't. But still my point is sound. They are breasts. Just because a child is attached doesn't change that fact. It is basically irrelevant if it makes you angry or not or whether you feel the sexualisation of breasts is somehow man's fault (what isn't man's fault nowadays exactly?) Accept it and the consequences are much easier to come to terms with.
I don't deny there is a lot of stupid comments on slashdot. Like usual really. But what exactly are you crying about here?
You seem to lack an opinion apart from outrage. Which makes you look stupid really.
My penis also can be used for urination, thus I should be able to do it in public. Of course I would only do it into the drain. Urine on the street isn't nice. But I should be able to do it without people being all upset about it. After all it's natural man. I drink. I pee.
I'm actually fine with public breast feeding, I just had to point out your stupid argument.
You are a disgrace to your sex. Be balanced or get the chop.
You people and this stupid meme.
Penis is analogous to vagina. Vagina is has as many returns with safesearch on as penis does.
IMO the reason clitoris is not fine is because women are prudish about it and they cause the hoo-haa. It is not a fucking misogynistic thing. And frankly I think people like you who think it are a a fucking disgrace.
That's not that I won't here a good argument to the contrary. It's just I haven't yet heard one.
The problem with treating men and women's chests as equal is that men don't have breasts.
Thus demanding equality in this context is somewhat impossible.
To some extent I agree a man's chest is sexual and so if a man can do it, a woman should be able to as well. But realistically breasts are far more sexual as far as English-speaking culture is concerned.
I'm not sure if a man's chest can ever be less sexual, even if we become more tolerant of them.
Just think of sexually-provocative silhouettes. Part of a woman's appealing curves are her breasts. Women know this and show them in their best lights to their advantage.
Frankly I can't shake the general believe that women who demand the right to bare their breasts in public in fact are just the kinds of women who will not be happy no matter what ideals of feminism are set into law.
Any analogy that implies something is as bad as shooting your wife is a bad analogy!
Apple are bad, but I can't see how they are as bad.
For instance, iPod came out with MP3 support. Microsoft never would have done that. They did with Zune of course, but they had to compete with iPod by that point and could hardly release something half featured relative to the competition.
For instance Apple used KHTML rather than try to make some proprietary crap lock-in facilitating browser.
Sure Apple want to lock you into Apple products, but they aren't as bad as historically Microsoft have been.
Seriously, it's taken Facebook three years to overtake Myspace. I can't see anyone beating back Facebook anytime soon. There isn't any other serious competitors out there. Bebo could be considered competition, but it just doesn't have any hook that will propel it beyond Facebook.
Facebook has triumphed over Myspace in the social space because it reflects what people want from a social site better. Privacy. Communication. Voyeurism. Connections that are real, not a representation of how popular they want to appear. The home page alone is amazing for keeping up with friends and their lives, and it shows in their page views, and stickiness. People literally spend all day with the Facebook homepage open in one of their tabs.
Until something beats all these things, nobody is jumping ship. The userbase is just too huge now, it is no longer merely geeks looking for the newest toy. It's people who actually find the site useful. They are much harder to steal.
Facebook have picked up some of the most talented developers in Silicon Valley, it really shows.
I happen to know some of the aces Facebook has up its sleeves in the months ahead too. They may well double their theoretical valuations again.
All the usability testing I've read suggests people find the new Office very intuitive. What a lot of hot air you just expelled.
Pretty much every one of your points is fairly bogus. it doesn't matter if the buttons are different shapes, it only matters if people can tell where it's edges are, and that it's a button. Etc.
You have a point that some things are hard to find, but well, I don't think the old menu system was any better.
This is all m00t anyway since it's obvious the future is web apps.
PS3 is OpenGL, so I can't see OpenGL vanishing from gaming any time soon.
As a result, we (Last.fm) only support ubuntu and, for people who compile the tarball, we only support compile errors and bugs that are obviously our own fault.
It's two hard to support everything really.
For me the series was awful, and the movie just bad.
I assume I'm thinking of the right series? Where Paul was a dick, didn't love Channi and wanted to get jiggy with Princess Irulan?
I'm not entirely sure how Herbert was involved in the movie's production, yet it seemed to miss the point, but at least he was involved, and this may be why I prefer it to the series.
480p also has significantly fewer vertical lines too. So it is actually about a sixth. You can verify this with wikipedia or whatever you like.
I've been an Amarok developer for 3 years, and I'd like to comment.
;)
Amarok beats iTunes in quite a few ways; eg. wikipedia artist-lookup, lyrics lookup, suggesting music from you collection for you to play next, last.fm integration, cover downloads, playback formats supported, etc. Certainly we have every feature iTunes has except a music store. And we have patches to allow purchases from Magnatune sitting on the mailing list.
We aren't as simple as iTunes. Out interface shines in some areas, like our drag and drop focus, simple toolbars and browser metaphor, but is hacked together and complex in other areas. In many ways this is a symptom of open source development, but we do have a focus on making our interface easy to learn and uncluttered, and I'm sure this has helped us to become popular on Linux.
At the end of the day iTunes is targeted at different people. Can a music player that supports multiple audio backends and multiple database backends ever be as simple as one that comes with them built in and mostly unconfigurable? Yes, you can hide that stuff in an options dialog. But no you'll still have a system that is more difficult to make bug-free, and that has more potential for strange behaviour.
If you put the time in, Amarok beats everything else out there; we've put the time in to ensure that. But it isn't there yet, in terms of catering to the iTunes demographic. And I'm not sure we really want to do that anyway.
If anything our focus for Amarok 2 makes us even less like iTunes, and perhaps not in a general appeal kind of way. But if you like music, and have a lot of it, you'll love Amarok 2. It's not ready yet though..
I'd go wherever I thought was the nicest place that wasn't pricing things so far that I felt it wasn't so nice.
I don't go to the cheapest place in town as generally it's a shithole, and I don't go to the most expensive place in town because generally I feel ripped off and it's bad value for money. I go someplace inbetween.
I think most people are like me, but since you've been modded up and I haven't, perhaps I am wrong.
I play lots of multiplayer, I've hardly come across any "kiddies", almost everyone I've played with is twenty-something. I think it helps to pick the right zone, recreation is not full of kids.
As other people say reputation helps people are less likely to be a dick due to the lack of anonymity. It seems.
Without HD it's just like any other games console. Looks fine.
In fact the move to HD is not that important, TV has looked photorealistic at SD resolutions for years. Things look great in HD sure, but the Xbox can't really take advantage of it since it supports SD too, ie, you can't use smaller text as SD won't show it legibily.
The biggest issue IMO is the price, but after I'd played my mate's I knew I wanted one. The Live features are innovative and fun.
You won't regret it, gamerpoints and achievements alone make games last about 3 times as long. The arcade is full of relatively cheap stuff that is good for short sessions.
Xbox 360 is great because of gamerpoints and achievements and Live. Gamerpoints are rewards for achievements in games, getting all 1000 points made hitman last about 5 weeks longer for me as I scrambled around in their pursuit.
Live is like PC multiplayer with less arseholes, and more people it's fun to play with. Mainly due to headsets and reputation that is linked to your gamertag. The fact you can talk to people in every game by default is a huge plus.
All I miss from PC gaming is FPSs with mouse, but I don't play multiplayer fps on the xbox. Most console games are going third person now, which works well on console, and can't be emulated on pc without, say too mice, or two joysticks.
I'd understand if you didn't get one because it costs too much, but not getting one because it can optionally output to HD is wierd.
I used mine with SD for ages, and frankly the upgrade to HD is nice, but not essential.
I dunno, things are looking pretty photorealistic next gen.
Check Crysis and Gears of War.
The issue now is more making the animation look realistic. Which may well take a few more years.
Videos of Crysis look damn good for animation though.
There are a number of videos on google video that suggest it will indeed look that good. But google video is hard to judge since it looks pretty blurry.
Notably the trailer looks as good as the screens you tend to see, but in a few sections of the trailer, it looks average, suggesting that the trailer is in engine, and looks that good.
It uses the unreal engine, so I'm fairly sure it'll look just as good on PC, if you have the write bits and pieces.
Check out gears of war screenshots for examples of what the 360 can do when people program for all 3 cores and the gpu.