Re:"Girly" subject matter is not the answer
on
10 Gateway Games
·
· Score: 1
Bloodrayne has nothing gender-specific in its storyline or text addressed to the player- the only way that you could come to that conclusion is by being sexist yourself, and deciding that content relating to violent combat is inherently male.
I arrived at that conclusion by looking at the design of the character and then looking at the marketing campaign used to sell the game. The entire campaign is centered on sexualy objectifying the main character. Examples:
http://www.bloodrayne2.com/images/br2chest.jpeg
http://www.bloodrayne2.com/images/br2_butt.jpg
Additionally, while "Bloodrayne has nothing gender-specific in its storyline or text," design elements support my assertion (this is an unlockable character skin):
...the only way that you could come to that conclusion is by being sexist yourself, and deciding that content relating to violent combat is inherently male.
I don't think that violent content is inherently male, nor do I think my post implies that. In fact, I specificly stated that steering women towards "girly" content is sexist.
Re:"Girly" subject matter is not the answer
on
10 Gateway Games
·
· Score: 1
Have you seen how women are portrayed in media written by and for women--magazines like Cosmo, Vogue, and their ilk? Hint: the word oversexualized may be appropriate!
I have, and the difference is that the portrayals of women in Cosmo, et. al. are either meant to be aspirational to women, i.e: the magazine is telling the reader "You should look like this and you can! Read me to find out how!" or escapist fantasy "Imagine yourself looking like a movie star!" In both cases the magazines are feeding in to women's desires related to their self image.
The equally or even more unattainable depictions of women in gaming are not targeted at women, but at male players, with the purpose of being strictly a sexual fantasy object. See the difference in tone? Cosmo says: "Wouldn't you look great if you looked like this?" while Bloodrayne says: "I look like this solely to make you want to fuck me." This tone dissuades women from playing such games and game in general because it informs women that the consumers of such entertainment may very well objectify them, too.
And for that matter, how are men portrayed in video games? I don't know about you, but I'm not a musclebound, hard edged warrior ready to grab a gun and shoot some aliens. I don't think I've ever seen a guy in a video game that comes close to what I look like--and yet it doesn't stop guys.
Again, the muscle-bound male bad-asses are aspirational or escapist fantasy for guys. You don't keep playing in spite of your avatar being a muscle bound hunk, you continue to play bescause such a depiction adds to your immersive gaming experience.
Drew Nolosco
Chief Game Designer
Riot Media
"Girly" subject matter is not the answer
on
10 Gateway Games
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This article implies that the single biggest hurdle to involving more women in gaming entertainment is the subject matter of games. This is incorrect. I have found that the reason women are reluctant to play games is because culture pressures women not to play.
-Male gamers create an enviornment hostile to female gamers, both actively and passively. Examples: telling women that they wont like Doom 3 but they will certainly like DDR (AHEM!); Asking a women who's gaming if she actually likes games (of course she does you dope, she's playing one now!)
-Game creators and especially marketers create disincentives for women to play through sexist or oversexualized portrayals of females. Examples: Hijacking Lara Croft's image from female Indy to Drips-With-Sex-Balloon-Boobs; Bloodrayne; too many to list.
-Women in positions of influence tell young women not to game because it is "not a girl thing to do." I still see (younger and older) mothers tell their daughters not to game (in whatever form) and to play with Barbie. And at the risk of getting shot, I tell them off every time.
To be honest I'm getting sick of the way women are treated and portrayed by the gaming community. From a social standpoint, I want to see games exoand into a major culture-spanning entertainment, and that can't happen without the other half of the species; from a business standpoint, the game industry is ignoring signifigant potential sales on the games they make by being sexist; and from an equality standpoint, what we as gamers and game industry professionals are doing to women is morally objectionable.
I'd like to see this experiment reproduced with something which expresses quantum randomness, like Brownian Motion. If the noosphere impacts matter on the quantum level, then the potential impact is staggering.
If Valve was actually worried about it, then they would have put some 128-bit, maybe even 256-bit single-key encryption in there, stuff which would never feasibly be broken.
So if we get bombed by terrorists in the next few days, we'll know why the NSA wasn't paying attention to comms traffic: they were playing Cray-cracked HL2.
Lots of experiments have been conducted proving that electronics can survive extreme forces as produced by a gun-launch of some sort: see this
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm
for details about the HAARP project which launched electronics with a 5-inch gun to 50 miles up.
Interesting point from the article - the author sees this system fitting into existing 5" gun mounts, and sees one gun as being able to deliver equivelent fire as a squadron of F18s. That means destroyers become as powerful as aircraft carriers.
True, but only out to the range of the projectile. So inside of 250miles in this case, you are correct. A 'real' aircraft carrier can project force out to the range of its planes, which is always signifigantly greater then 250 miles.
The use of a plasma torch as you described is called supercavitation. It works in water, too: the Soviets developed a rocket powered torpedo which vented some of its exhaust out the nose to create a bubble in the water which the torpedo flew through. THe supercavitating torpedo had severe manuverability problems: none of its control surfaces were touching the water, and if it tried to turn too much, the rocket exhaust bubble would collapse. Would the plasma torch reentry system have similar problems?
Gas stoves have rows of preforated tubing: the gas flows though the tubes, out the holes and burns when ignited. A dish of food placed under these tubes will be directly exposed to the flame. For electric stoves it's a lot easier: think about your bread toaster.
You're correct: the plasma WiFi antennas are probably not lighter than metal ones. I was referring in that instance, however to radar antennas. I'm positive that plasma antennas would be lighter. Now that you mention it however, I wonder what the g-stress tolerances of the sturdiest glass tube are. If it's used in military airplane radars, it's going to take a few.
One of the main advantages here seems to be that the antennas aren't metal. That makes them physically lighter and reduces noise by bunches, and doesn't reflect incoming radar when it's turned off. This is definatelly a military app.; especially in that is can be used as a radar antenna. Sounds perfect for airborne early warning radar systems.
Re:Why is this news?
on
Robosaurus
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Actually, the Robosaurus is quite interesting: it's a Waldo. The operator (and one passenger) sit in the head section, where the operator controls the machine's arm movements through by strapping himself into a movable restraint system. When the operator moves his arms, Robo makes the same movements.
On the bot's page, the credit Heinlein and Aliens as inspirations. Pretty neat!
"I don't know what the requirements are to keep an A-10 flying, but I bet that a replacement aircraft would require a lot less manpower."
While economic arguments in general are important to keep in mind, battlefield utility and survivability trump in this instance. The A-10 was designed specifically for maximum survivability. Another poster noted that the wings were designed to provide adequate lift even if half shot off. Other safeguards include: cable control back up system to the fly-by-wire system, ability to fly on one engine, ability to land reasonably well with gear up, a titanium armor belt protecting the pilot and cockpit.
As the recent downing of several apaches and other helicopters illustrate, susceptibility to ground fire is a serious issue for choppers. More 'modern' fixed-wing aircraft replacements neither feature these safety enhancements nor have the ability to equip the same payload. Consider this economic argument: how much do the search-and rescue missions for downed Apaches cost?
To the poster who mentioned that the Warthogs main gun has some kick: so much recoil that it slows the plane's forward motion down by about 75-100 knots for each 2 second burst.
Slashdot Mirror
I arrived at that conclusion by looking at the design of the character and then looking at the marketing campaign used to sell the game. The entire campaign is centered on sexualy objectifying the main character. Examples:
http://www.bloodrayne2.com/images/br2chest.jpeg
http://www.bloodrayne2.com/images/br2_butt.jpg
Additionally, while "Bloodrayne has nothing gender-specific in its storyline or text," design elements support my assertion (this is an unlockable character skin):
http://www.bloodrayne2.com/images/schoolgirl_rayne _big.jpg
I don't think that violent content is inherently male, nor do I think my post implies that. In fact, I specificly stated that steering women towards "girly" content is sexist.
I have, and the difference is that the portrayals of women in Cosmo, et. al. are either meant to be aspirational to women, i.e: the magazine is telling the reader "You should look like this and you can! Read me to find out how!" or escapist fantasy "Imagine yourself looking like a movie star!" In both cases the magazines are feeding in to women's desires related to their self image.
The equally or even more unattainable depictions of women in gaming are not targeted at women, but at male players, with the purpose of being strictly a sexual fantasy object. See the difference in tone? Cosmo says: "Wouldn't you look great if you looked like this?" while Bloodrayne says: "I look like this solely to make you want to fuck me." This tone dissuades women from playing such games and game in general because it informs women that the consumers of such entertainment may very well objectify them, too.
And for that matter, how are men portrayed in video games? I don't know about you, but I'm not a musclebound, hard edged warrior ready to grab a gun and shoot some aliens. I don't think I've ever seen a guy in a video game that comes close to what I look like--and yet it doesn't stop guys.
Again, the muscle-bound male bad-asses are aspirational or escapist fantasy for guys. You don't keep playing in spite of your avatar being a muscle bound hunk, you continue to play bescause such a depiction adds to your immersive gaming experience. Drew Nolosco Chief Game Designer Riot Media
-Male gamers create an enviornment hostile to female gamers, both actively and passively. Examples: telling women that they wont like Doom 3 but they will certainly like DDR (AHEM!); Asking a women who's gaming if she actually likes games (of course she does you dope, she's playing one now!)
-Game creators and especially marketers create disincentives for women to play through sexist or oversexualized portrayals of females. Examples: Hijacking Lara Croft's image from female Indy to Drips-With-Sex-Balloon-Boobs; Bloodrayne; too many to list.
-Women in positions of influence tell young women not to game because it is "not a girl thing to do." I still see (younger and older) mothers tell their daughters not to game (in whatever form) and to play with Barbie. And at the risk of getting shot, I tell them off every time.
To be honest I'm getting sick of the way women are treated and portrayed by the gaming community. From a social standpoint, I want to see games exoand into a major culture-spanning entertainment, and that can't happen without the other half of the species; from a business standpoint, the game industry is ignoring signifigant potential sales on the games they make by being sexist; and from an equality standpoint, what we as gamers and game industry professionals are doing to women is morally objectionable.
Drew Nolosco
Chief Game Designer
Riot Media, Inc.
I'd like to see this experiment reproduced with something which expresses quantum randomness, like Brownian Motion. If the noosphere impacts matter on the quantum level, then the potential impact is staggering.
I will never be productive again. Please don't roll a 7.
this is actually a pretty good idea. After, all the whole point of this is to make buying games easier for ignorant consumers.
If Valve was actually worried about it, then they would have put some 128-bit, maybe even 256-bit single-key encryption in there, stuff which would never feasibly be broken.
So if we get bombed by terrorists in the next few days, we'll know why the NSA wasn't paying attention to comms traffic: they were playing Cray-cracked HL2.
Sometimes Barney starts playing Peekaboo on his own.
I really hope that whatever he's playing peekaboo with isn't plush and purple.
Lots of experiments have been conducted proving that electronics can survive extreme forces as produced by a gun-launch of some sort: see this http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm for details about the HAARP project which launched electronics with a 5-inch gun to 50 miles up.
Interesting point from the article - the author sees this system fitting into existing 5" gun mounts, and sees one gun as being able to deliver equivelent fire as a squadron of F18s. That means destroyers become as powerful as aircraft carriers. True, but only out to the range of the projectile. So inside of 250miles in this case, you are correct. A 'real' aircraft carrier can project force out to the range of its planes, which is always signifigantly greater then 250 miles.
RTFA: Article 2 mentioned that the projectiles would include integral GPS and manuver systems.
The use of a plasma torch as you described is called supercavitation. It works in water, too: the Soviets developed a rocket powered torpedo which vented some of its exhaust out the nose to create a bubble in the water which the torpedo flew through. THe supercavitating torpedo had severe manuverability problems: none of its control surfaces were touching the water, and if it tried to turn too much, the rocket exhaust bubble would collapse. Would the plasma torch reentry system have similar problems?
Gas stoves have rows of preforated tubing: the gas flows though the tubes, out the holes and burns when ignited. A dish of food placed under these tubes will be directly exposed to the flame. For electric stoves it's a lot easier: think about your bread toaster.
You are correct in saying that the mass extinction in question is a theory, but the evidence to back this theory is very substantial.
Broil is when you put the food directly under the flames.
The seller's ebay ID is "bearsuits2" - I guess he's not the only one in the lucrative bear suit marketplace.
Ten bucks says that the other "bearsuits" ebay member is a furry.
If you buy both these suits, does this make you a "steely"?
You're correct: the plasma WiFi antennas are probably not lighter than metal ones. I was referring in that instance, however to radar antennas. I'm positive that plasma antennas would be lighter. Now that you mention it however, I wonder what the g-stress tolerances of the sturdiest glass tube are. If it's used in military airplane radars, it's going to take a few.
One of the main advantages here seems to be that the antennas aren't metal. That makes them physically lighter and reduces noise by bunches, and doesn't reflect incoming radar when it's turned off. This is definatelly a military app.; especially in that is can be used as a radar antenna. Sounds perfect for airborne early warning radar systems.
Actually, the Robosaurus is quite interesting: it's a Waldo. The operator (and one passenger) sit in the head section, where the operator controls the machine's arm movements through by strapping himself into a movable restraint system. When the operator moves his arms, Robo makes the same movements. On the bot's page, the credit Heinlein and Aliens as inspirations. Pretty neat!
"I don't know what the requirements are to keep an A-10 flying, but I bet that a replacement aircraft would require a lot less manpower." While economic arguments in general are important to keep in mind, battlefield utility and survivability trump in this instance. The A-10 was designed specifically for maximum survivability. Another poster noted that the wings were designed to provide adequate lift even if half shot off. Other safeguards include: cable control back up system to the fly-by-wire system, ability to fly on one engine, ability to land reasonably well with gear up, a titanium armor belt protecting the pilot and cockpit. As the recent downing of several apaches and other helicopters illustrate, susceptibility to ground fire is a serious issue for choppers. More 'modern' fixed-wing aircraft replacements neither feature these safety enhancements nor have the ability to equip the same payload. Consider this economic argument: how much do the search-and rescue missions for downed Apaches cost? To the poster who mentioned that the Warthogs main gun has some kick: so much recoil that it slows the plane's forward motion down by about 75-100 knots for each 2 second burst.