You have to remember, corporations are not farming stuff out overseas because they're easier to manipulate, use, get around laws that would raise problems in America. They're doing it because they are smarter and work harder.
The fact that Americans have some expectation of rights and safety and personal freedom and a decent wage has nothing at all to do with it.. Not a thing... Absolutely not!.... *cough*
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
In the first place, people like me don't get the flu as I already said, moron. In the second place, people like me aren't stupid enough fuckheads to go into work or school or the general population when we are sick and put dozens or hundreds of other people who are forced to be confined in the same place at risk of catching it.
And of course flu straints and colds mutate. Are you retarded? Are you seriously suggesting that evolution works everywhere *but* in the realm of colds and flus and that they don't become more harmful and vicious over time to compensate for the medicinal walls they hit this year?
I hate people who get flu shots every year as if the flu is personally targetting THEM and they're 90 years old and can't fight it off or something.
People like you are going to get the entire fucking planet killed off when you run into the one strain you can no longer prepare for. Good luck with that.
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
Damn it. Don't they say that it's a sign of extreme genius when a person often confuses real actual words for other actual words automatically during written or verbal communication, without noticing that they'd done so?
I hope that's right, for my sake.:)
No clue vaccination for me...
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I don't even know what to say about stuff like this. I just know that I don't think all these morons who rush out to get flu shots are exactly helping it (and they probably don't understand even the slightest about biology - not that I do all that much, either).
I do know that I haven't had the flue since I was a kid. It's probably been fourteen years since I've had the clue. I don't take flu shots. I don't take medication. I'm not in excellent health. And if I do get sick, I just tough it out. That's life. I'm not going to contribute to the next evil strain by helping it mutate.
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Do you see why I keep saying she's a nosey busy-body do-gooder?
What do roofers without proper safety equipment have to do with the safety of her children? What do locked oil tanks have to do with the safety of her children? Why is she letting her childrne play on a construction site? This chick sounds like the kind of person who would call the EPA because your jeep is leaking oil in your own driveway or she doesn't think you have proper city permits to build-out your bedroom extension on your own house.
But of course, I'm called a troll by all the people who obviously DO NOT care to find out what's going on. OH MY GOD! Roofers not wearing proper protective gear! Unlocked oil tanks on a CONSTRUCTION SITE...! Won't someone think of the children?! The... uh... children.. uh... roofers...?
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Do you see why I keep saying she's a nosey busy-body do-gooder?
What do roofer's without proper safety equipment have to do with the safety of her children? What do locked oil tanks have to do with the safety of her children? Why is she letting her childrne play on a construction site? This chick sounds like the kind of person who would call the EPA because your jeep is leaking oil in your own driveway or she doesn't think you have proper city permits to build-out your bedroom extension on your own house.
Why does she need huge pocket books to prove anything? The truth is free. If you're going to go around yelling... whatever it is she's yelling (we don't know if she's whining about pollution or dangerous building practices or.. what...), you should make sure you're not just blowing hot ass all over the place, first.
If she has lots of evidence (and, since she's lobbing these accusations and has a website documenting things, one might presume she should have this evidence), then she has nothing to worry about.
If she has a case, someone will take it pro-bono. Lawyers love a good "david versus goliath" fight on their record, if they know they can win and the person has a case.
On the other hand, if she doesn't have a case and her claims are baseless, she's doing damage to a posssibly innocent party and no lawyer will touch it. If no lawyer will touch her case, it's a sign that she's full of shit. Or at least, she's spouting things without anything to back it up - which is just as bad. It's one thing to go around claiming, say, "Microsoft is teh evil!" as a rather generic sentiment. It's another to go around saying "Microsoft is releasing toxins into the local water supply from their software packaging and is killing thousands of babies as a result". If you're saying one, it's opinion. If you're saying the other, you should have some sort of evidence to back it up. If you have evidence to back it up, you'll get support and legal help by throngs of hungry lawyers. If you don't... they'll laugh at you and you'll be stuck paying the bill for your thoughtless and wild comments.
In the end, she'll get what she deserves. Since the article is "People Magazine!" light on details, we can't really know.
Since I can only go by what we've read in the article, I have to ask you "what the hell are you talking about?".
Something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years?
What something? What people? What problem? What area? What effects?
The article says NOTHING about what her complaints or accusations were. The ONLY comment in the article is the following:
She said she was constantly keeping her kids and their friends out of trouble, as they would keep running into hazards around their neighbourhood.
What neighborhood doesn't have "hazards"? What neighborhood exists where you don't have to keep your children away from some "hazards"?
I'm not going to get on my knees and praise some busy-body armchair activisit with a pack of pampers and a website, just because we're told that she's being supposedly unfairly sued by a big bad evil corporation for some vague unnamed things that she claims they did. Until then, she's just a do-goooder busy-body trying to stir up trouble so she can get a little attention. I mean, unless her kids are falling down 30 foot wells or growing an arm out of their foreheads . . . Or at least she has some medically documented evidence and solid basis for whatever claims she's making about.. whatever.
Seriously, what a bunch of sycophants that you're all reading this "your rights online" crap and assuming that she's the next Mother Theresa based on an article that says *NOTHING* more than "this breeder chick said some stuff about this company that does some business in this place where she lives and they didn't like it so are suing her".
And hell, if she's not making the shit up and is sure about the claims she's making and the company she's making them against, what does she have to worry about? Someone will pick the case up pro-bono, she'll win and she'll be able to go on a talk show circuit and parade her snotty little toddlers around on cable news. It'll be all awesome and stuff.
Do me a favor and end your life. Let me guess, from your tripod site, you're one of those chubby stay at home mom types who think that she's doing society a service by breeding and sitting around the house crying woefully at the difficulties of motherhood?
This woman is not an expert. She's a nosey neighbor who thinks it's her job to play neighborhood savior. Other tham rumor, gossip and wild assumptions, what exactly does she have (and no, we don't know for sure since her fucking site is down) to show the company she's blaming for everything really is to blame?
Not every loudmouth woman in the neighborhood is Erin fucking Brokovitch. A lot of them are just whiney attention whores (munchousen syndrome-esque?) pouting on a website.
And I don't really care if you label me a troll or not. I'm not going to fucking sink to some retarded level of adulation for someone just because the big bad corporations are silencing a sweet little do-gooder breeder in Canada. Not every "victim" in a YRO Slashdot article is sympathetic.
Nice assumption about rich stay-at-home moms, but my family had five children, my mother stayed at home, and we lived below the poverty line. I think that's more typical than the rich "busy-body do-gooders". Sorry to burst your own little self-righteous bubble.
Five kids and a stay-at-home mom? Gee, I wonder why you were below the poverty line? What do you want, a medal for your mom being able to squirt out more kids than she could afford and not working to afford them?
I'm sorry to burst YOUR self-rightous bubble. I'm so god damned tired of these busy-body "I'm so holier than thou" types who think that they're the greatest gift to the planet, because they squatted out a kid or six. You've done nobody any favors by having children, becoming a parent or having more children than you can afford.
If this woman has multiple children, is able to stay at home and play on the internet all day, then she can't be all that poor. First clue? She has a computer and internet access and nothing better to do than police the neighborhood about vague "hazards" that she's pointing the finger at some company for causing.
Exactly what credentials does this woman have to be making such claims? Other than probably being a highschool or college dropout (so she could squeeze out a few kids in the last decade, of course), what qualifies her to be able to go out and lob these kind of accusations against a company?
But sure, if you want to mod my intial post down, because you have this intrinsic belief that everything a parent does is wonderful and should be rewarded, fine. I just happen to think that this chick is a busy body spouting off about things and pointing the finger at a company with questional evidence (which I can't verify, since her site is inaccessible).
I really detest these busy-body do-gooder stay-at-home-mom types. These are the same chicks that waste millions of dollars of public money because they were too stupid and left their child around a bucket full of water. Then they spend the rest of their lives going on Oprah and speaking in school assemblies and lobbying government to legislate tougher "bucket design" laws on corporations, because not one other human being should have to suffer their little baby being drowned in a bucket full of water. Or any other random thing that stupid parents or stupid children allow to happen (I don't even know where to start with such a list).
People like this chick have too much free time and end up making everyone else's lives difficult by trying to cover for their own stupidity by assuming everyone else is just as dumb and needs to be protected by them.
Besides, if she's a stay-at-home mom with three kids, she must have a lot of money and a wealthy husband. So why not just move somewhere nicer?
So what? As long as people can still shop at walmart, hang out at the mall and watch Sex in the City or Friends and get cable television piped into their house, does any of this really matter?
Until you take people's religion (Christianity, at least), television or shopping away, nobody will much care about anything. Entertainment is the opiate that quiets the masses and keeps them from feeling too radical about any other rights or liberties being eroded.
I'm been a Debian-only guy since early 2002 and when it was time to get a new laptop, I decided to go with Ubuntu, because of that "heritage". Unfortunately, it still had a lot of problems that are not entirely due to Ubuntu itself. Problems such as it never remembering the wifi card and network, so it'd have to be setup every time you logged into Ubuntu. Problems like there not being any solid driver's for the graphics card (unless you wanted 2D only - even screensavers chugged the 2.4ghz, 2gb RAM, 128mb ATI 9800 system down to a crawl.
There were a number of other issues, too. In the end, I wiped it and gave it to my brother as a Windows system for school. I could probably have resolved all the little issues with a bunch of elbow grease, but I don't have that kind of time and thought maybe Ubuntu was ready for prime-time easier-than-redhat installation. (Or at least, what I'm told is easy -- I haven't used Redhat except for a couple months back in 1997).
All in all, I was impressed with Ubuntu and I think it shows great promise of all the current desktop distros. And frankly, as long as you still have apt-get, what's not to like?:)
I'm not familiar with this "reseach" that you speak of, but it doesn't sound like something I'd want to donate my logs to. It sounds like some sort of weird internet version of felching.. Ew. No thank you.
On the other hand, I like being able to breathe, without having to inhale stale unwashed sweat from my fellow gamers. I don't have that problem when those gamers are on the otherside of an internet connection or a well-spaced-out LANparty design.
You're an idiotic little pussified twat. Making fun of someone's name is sexual harassment? Let me guess, if he said her shoes were ugly, that'd be sexual harassment, too - because anything a woman dislikes is harassment?
If the researcher's name was Dick Johnson, you wouldn't have a problem with it. Moron.
I'm amazed that people still play RPGs on paper anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's fun for some people . . . But there's too much of a stigma with it and it's too closely associated with LARPers (of the "two magic two magic two magic!" spitwad hurling, cardboard sword, towel-caped variety.
I got into AD&D when I was about ten to twelve years old, but only insomuch as I liked reading the monster manuals and created a couple campaigns of my own (mostly for the writing challenge). I never actually played the game. I did try playing some StarWars D&D variety type of thing once, though. It was pretty lame. A bunch of (semi) grown men sitting around a table eating pizza rolling dice and describing what they're going to do to kill some imaginary creature while the DM toils away for ten minutes at a time trying to figure out what to do next or what the rules are.
Meh. Gimme Neverwinter Nights or something any day. Videogames don't have the social stigma that fat bald guys in a basement do.
Well, then stop playing those games. Movies have attractive, stereotypical characters in them, because that's what sells. You go to see a movie, becuase Angelina Jolie is in it - not because Kathy bates is in it. You can say "but that's not what I want" and that's fine, but you're not the majority and commercial success lies in satisfying the majority of people.
So you can have games where you play a balding middle aged chunkster in his mom's basement or a weflare queen with six kids and four ex husbands living in a trailer park, but that will never achieve more than underground success and you will never play, say, an MMORPG that isn't filled with the stereotypical kinds of characters you'd expect. Why? Because there wont' be much of a community to rally around it, since most will go for the generic, already done stuff.
And, again, there's nothing wrong with the whole sexualization, objectification, sterotypical male/female characters. After all, that's how you pick your mate and you treat people based on how they live up to those attributes in real life. Why should games be any different?
And if it's just guys to blame for all this horrible stuff, watch a girl play the Sims and see what kind of characters she creates.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to remember, corporations are not farming stuff out overseas because they're easier to manipulate, use, get around laws that would raise problems in America. They're doing it because they are smarter and work harder.
The fact that Americans have some expectation of rights and safety and personal freedom and a decent wage has nothing at all to do with it.. Not a thing... Absolutely not!.... *cough*
In the first place, people like me don't get the flu as I already said, moron. In the second place, people like me aren't stupid enough fuckheads to go into work or school or the general population when we are sick and put dozens or hundreds of other people who are forced to be confined in the same place at risk of catching it.
And of course flu straints and colds mutate. Are you retarded? Are you seriously suggesting that evolution works everywhere *but* in the realm of colds and flus and that they don't become more harmful and vicious over time to compensate for the medicinal walls they hit this year?
I hate people who get flu shots every year as if the flu is personally targetting THEM and they're 90 years old and can't fight it off or something.
People like you are going to get the entire fucking planet killed off when you run into the one strain you can no longer prepare for. Good luck with that.
Damn it. Don't they say that it's a sign of extreme genius when a person often confuses real actual words for other actual words automatically during written or verbal communication, without noticing that they'd done so?
:)
I hope that's right, for my sake.
No clue vaccination for me...
I don't even know what to say about stuff like this. I just know that I don't think all these morons who rush out to get flu shots are exactly helping it (and they probably don't understand even the slightest about biology - not that I do all that much, either).
I do know that I haven't had the flue since I was a kid. It's probably been fourteen years since I've had the clue. I don't take flu shots. I don't take medication. I'm not in excellent health. And if I do get sick, I just tough it out. That's life. I'm not going to contribute to the next evil strain by helping it mutate.
How long until SCO sues them and demands that they hand over all data regarding KDE 3.6?
Well, it's a good thing that nvidia has the market on laptop video cards cornered!
:(
Oh wait, they don't.
Not even remotely...
How was I able to categorize her? This is how:
Her claims are bullshit:
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Do you see why I keep saying she's a nosey busy-body do-gooder?
What do roofers without proper safety equipment have to do with the safety of her children? What do locked oil tanks have to do with the safety of her children? Why is she letting her childrne play on a construction site? This chick sounds like the kind of person who would call the EPA because your jeep is leaking oil in your own driveway or she doesn't think you have proper city permits to build-out your bedroom extension on your own house.
But of course, I'm called a troll by all the people who obviously DO NOT care to find out what's going on. OH MY GOD! Roofers not wearing proper protective gear! Unlocked oil tanks on a CONSTRUCTION SITE...! Won't someone think of the children?! The... uh... children.. uh... roofers...?
All of those claims are bullshit:
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Do you see why I keep saying she's a nosey busy-body do-gooder?
What do roofer's without proper safety equipment have to do with the safety of her children? What do locked oil tanks have to do with the safety of her children? Why is she letting her childrne play on a construction site? This chick sounds like the kind of person who would call the EPA because your jeep is leaking oil in your own driveway or she doesn't think you have proper city permits to build-out your bedroom extension on your own house.
Why does she need huge pocket books to prove anything? The truth is free. If you're going to go around yelling... whatever it is she's yelling (we don't know if she's whining about pollution or dangerous building practices or.. what...), you should make sure you're not just blowing hot ass all over the place, first.
If she has lots of evidence (and, since she's lobbing these accusations and has a website documenting things, one might presume she should have this evidence), then she has nothing to worry about.
If she has a case, someone will take it pro-bono. Lawyers love a good "david versus goliath" fight on their record, if they know they can win and the person has a case.
On the other hand, if she doesn't have a case and her claims are baseless, she's doing damage to a posssibly innocent party and no lawyer will touch it. If no lawyer will touch her case, it's a sign that she's full of shit. Or at least, she's spouting things without anything to back it up - which is just as bad. It's one thing to go around claiming, say, "Microsoft is teh evil!" as a rather generic sentiment. It's another to go around saying "Microsoft is releasing toxins into the local water supply from their software packaging and is killing thousands of babies as a result". If you're saying one, it's opinion. If you're saying the other, you should have some sort of evidence to back it up. If you have evidence to back it up, you'll get support and legal help by throngs of hungry lawyers. If you don't... they'll laugh at you and you'll be stuck paying the bill for your thoughtless and wild comments.
In the end, she'll get what she deserves. Since the article is "People Magazine!" light on details, we can't really know.
Since I can only go by what we've read in the article, I have to ask you "what the hell are you talking about?".
Something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years?
What something? What people? What problem? What area? What effects?
The article says NOTHING about what her complaints or accusations were. The ONLY comment in the article is the following:
She said she was constantly keeping her kids and their friends out of trouble, as they would keep running into hazards around their neighbourhood.
What neighborhood doesn't have "hazards"? What neighborhood exists where you don't have to keep your children away from some "hazards"?
I'm not going to get on my knees and praise some busy-body armchair activisit with a pack of pampers and a website, just because we're told that she's being supposedly unfairly sued by a big bad evil corporation for some vague unnamed things that she claims they did. Until then, she's just a do-goooder busy-body trying to stir up trouble so she can get a little attention. I mean, unless her kids are falling down 30 foot wells or growing an arm out of their foreheads . . . Or at least she has some medically documented evidence and solid basis for whatever claims she's making about.. whatever.
Seriously, what a bunch of sycophants that you're all reading this "your rights online" crap and assuming that she's the next Mother Theresa based on an article that says *NOTHING* more than "this breeder chick said some stuff about this company that does some business in this place where she lives and they didn't like it so are suing her".
And hell, if she's not making the shit up and is sure about the claims she's making and the company she's making them against, what does she have to worry about? Someone will pick the case up pro-bono, she'll win and she'll be able to go on a talk show circuit and parade her snotty little toddlers around on cable news. It'll be all awesome and stuff.
Do me a favor and end your life. Let me guess, from your tripod site, you're one of those chubby stay at home mom types who think that she's doing society a service by breeding and sitting around the house crying woefully at the difficulties of motherhood?
This woman is not an expert. She's a nosey neighbor who thinks it's her job to play neighborhood savior. Other tham rumor, gossip and wild assumptions, what exactly does she have (and no, we don't know for sure since her fucking site is down) to show the company she's blaming for everything really is to blame?
Not every loudmouth woman in the neighborhood is Erin fucking Brokovitch. A lot of them are just whiney attention whores (munchousen syndrome-esque?) pouting on a website.
And I don't really care if you label me a troll or not. I'm not going to fucking sink to some retarded level of adulation for someone just because the big bad corporations are silencing a sweet little do-gooder breeder in Canada. Not every "victim" in a YRO Slashdot article is sympathetic.
Nice assumption about rich stay-at-home moms, but my family had five children, my mother stayed at home, and we lived below the poverty line. I think that's more typical than the rich "busy-body do-gooders". Sorry to burst your own little self-righteous bubble.
Five kids and a stay-at-home mom? Gee, I wonder why you were below the poverty line? What do you want, a medal for your mom being able to squirt out more kids than she could afford and not working to afford them?
I'm sorry to burst YOUR self-rightous bubble. I'm so god damned tired of these busy-body "I'm so holier than thou" types who think that they're the greatest gift to the planet, because they squatted out a kid or six. You've done nobody any favors by having children, becoming a parent or having more children than you can afford.
If this woman has multiple children, is able to stay at home and play on the internet all day, then she can't be all that poor. First clue? She has a computer and internet access and nothing better to do than police the neighborhood about vague "hazards" that she's pointing the finger at some company for causing.
Exactly what credentials does this woman have to be making such claims? Other than probably being a highschool or college dropout (so she could squeeze out a few kids in the last decade, of course), what qualifies her to be able to go out and lob these kind of accusations against a company?
But sure, if you want to mod my intial post down, because you have this intrinsic belief that everything a parent does is wonderful and should be rewarded, fine. I just happen to think that this chick is a busy body spouting off about things and pointing the finger at a company with questional evidence (which I can't verify, since her site is inaccessible).
I really detest these busy-body do-gooder stay-at-home-mom types. These are the same chicks that waste millions of dollars of public money because they were too stupid and left their child around a bucket full of water. Then they spend the rest of their lives going on Oprah and speaking in school assemblies and lobbying government to legislate tougher "bucket design" laws on corporations, because not one other human being should have to suffer their little baby being drowned in a bucket full of water. Or any other random thing that stupid parents or stupid children allow to happen (I don't even know where to start with such a list).
People like this chick have too much free time and end up making everyone else's lives difficult by trying to cover for their own stupidity by assuming everyone else is just as dumb and needs to be protected by them.
Besides, if she's a stay-at-home mom with three kids, she must have a lot of money and a wealthy husband. So why not just move somewhere nicer?
As it says, it doesn't change the law. It only makes investigating easier and punishment more severe.
That sounds like changing the law, to me.
So what? As long as people can still shop at walmart, hang out at the mall and watch Sex in the City or Friends and get cable television piped into their house, does any of this really matter?
Until you take people's religion (Christianity, at least), television or shopping away, nobody will much care about anything. Entertainment is the opiate that quiets the masses and keeps them from feeling too radical about any other rights or liberties being eroded.
I'm been a Debian-only guy since early 2002 and when it was time to get a new laptop, I decided to go with Ubuntu, because of that "heritage". Unfortunately, it still had a lot of problems that are not entirely due to Ubuntu itself. Problems such as it never remembering the wifi card and network, so it'd have to be setup every time you logged into Ubuntu. Problems like there not being any solid driver's for the graphics card (unless you wanted 2D only - even screensavers chugged the 2.4ghz, 2gb RAM, 128mb ATI 9800 system down to a crawl.
:)
There were a number of other issues, too. In the end, I wiped it and gave it to my brother as a Windows system for school. I could probably have resolved all the little issues with a bunch of elbow grease, but I don't have that kind of time and thought maybe Ubuntu was ready for prime-time easier-than-redhat installation. (Or at least, what I'm told is easy -- I haven't used Redhat except for a couple months back in 1997).
All in all, I was impressed with Ubuntu and I think it shows great promise of all the current desktop distros. And frankly, as long as you still have apt-get, what's not to like?
I'm not familiar with this "reseach" that you speak of, but it doesn't sound like something I'd want to donate my logs to. It sounds like some sort of weird internet version of felching.. Ew. No thank you.
Since the going rate for your mom is about $2, that'd be about right!
On the other hand, I like being able to breathe, without having to inhale stale unwashed sweat from my fellow gamers. I don't have that problem when those gamers are on the otherside of an internet connection or a well-spaced-out LANparty design.
Videogaming makes you a conservative?
Hah. If you had a dollar for every time I've gotten laid in the last thirty years . . .
You're an idiotic little pussified twat. Making fun of someone's name is sexual harassment? Let me guess, if he said her shoes were ugly, that'd be sexual harassment, too - because anything a woman dislikes is harassment?
If the researcher's name was Dick Johnson, you wouldn't have a problem with it. Moron.
I'm amazed that people still play RPGs on paper anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's fun for some people . . . But there's too much of a stigma with it and it's too closely associated with LARPers (of the "two magic two magic two magic!" spitwad hurling, cardboard sword, towel-caped variety.
I got into AD&D when I was about ten to twelve years old, but only insomuch as I liked reading the monster manuals and created a couple campaigns of my own (mostly for the writing challenge). I never actually played the game. I did try playing some StarWars D&D variety type of thing once, though. It was pretty lame. A bunch of (semi) grown men sitting around a table eating pizza rolling dice and describing what they're going to do to kill some imaginary creature while the DM toils away for ten minutes at a time trying to figure out what to do next or what the rules are.
Meh. Gimme Neverwinter Nights or something any day. Videogames don't have the social stigma that fat bald guys in a basement do.
Well, then stop playing those games. Movies have attractive, stereotypical characters in them, because that's what sells. You go to see a movie, becuase Angelina Jolie is in it - not because Kathy bates is in it. You can say "but that's not what I want" and that's fine, but you're not the majority and commercial success lies in satisfying the majority of people.
So you can have games where you play a balding middle aged chunkster in his mom's basement or a weflare queen with six kids and four ex husbands living in a trailer park, but that will never achieve more than underground success and you will never play, say, an MMORPG that isn't filled with the stereotypical kinds of characters you'd expect. Why? Because there wont' be much of a community to rally around it, since most will go for the generic, already done stuff.
And, again, there's nothing wrong with the whole sexualization, objectification, sterotypical male/female characters. After all, that's how you pick your mate and you treat people based on how they live up to those attributes in real life. Why should games be any different?
And if it's just guys to blame for all this horrible stuff, watch a girl play the Sims and see what kind of characters she creates.