A good analogy would be a bookshare table at the local library with each book having a stickynote of rules inside the cover, where putting a book on the table without said note is analogous to putting your code on github without a license.
Imho this situation reminds me of how one of my professors described communication, he said "You can not not communicate". I think the same thing applies here; the very fact you're using a website, one where there is simply no reasonably conceivable way to not know the entire point of the website, is communicating something about your intentions.
Actually humans are very formidable hunters for one simple reason: Virtually all predators on land will have to break off and try again after resting if their initial attack fails. Humans just shrug and set out at a comfortable jog after the one that got away and try poking it with a stick, and then when it runs off that time we'll keep following it again. And again. And again. And again, over and over until we've either killed it directly or until whatever we're hunting is simply too tired to move anymore.
We're pretty much the only species capable of that kind of sustained physical activity, almost everybody else is stronger or faster only in short bursts.
No, asking for sources or *gasp* investing a little of your own intellectual effort of your own and providing your own sources contradicting the original claim was standard. [Citation Needed] has pretty much always been one step shy of trolling at best, especially since it's most often used as a drive by or as part of the "accuse the other guy of what you're guilty of" trick...
Like yourself, for example. You start out with [citation needed] before claiming you had sources proving something else. Sources that you didn't provide then and still haven't provided now, even though you've expanded to borderline ad hominem claiming my "numbers are clearly made up" despite it being literally impossible to NOT find proof they aren't IF you'd done so much as a Feeling Lucky google search for "one in six male sexual assault".
As for your claims that women are 5x as likely to be victims of sexual assault... There's a little thing called a "sanity test". Basically you run a rough working of the numbers and see if the result is either definitively impossible or otherwise sufficiently implausible as to warrant further investigation. Now you claim your still undisclosed sources place a woman's odds of sexual assault over the age of 15 at 5x that of a man's, that means either women's odds are much higher than the odds I gave for men or men's odds are much lower than what I provided. The latter flat out fails the sanity test without even needing to think about it because the rate of confirmed crimes is already high enough to support a 1 in 6 rate of victimization for men, which leaves the former.
If a mans odds are 1 in 6 (ie ~16.66%), which you're about to be literally BURIED in the proof of regardless of the previous sanity test, that would make a woman's 5x greater odds ~83.3%. In other words it would be virtually a statistical certainty that every single woman in the united states would at some point in her life be sexually assaulted. As before the numbers completely fail the sanity test unless you also follow the claim that upwards of 90% of all sexual assaults are completely unreported and never discovered... but THAT in turn completely fails yet another sanity test: the nation's population simply cannot support the absolute number of offenses that would be required to satisfy those probabilities. With the confirmed facts about condom use and physical violence it's just not possible for that quantity of sexual assaults to be taking place in utter secrecy, it'd basically be the sexual assault equivalent of living in Buffy The Vampire Slayer or renting a room in Halliwell Manor and never noticing anything supernatural.
Now if you'd like to rejoin the real world, where we don't have entire suburbs dedicated to 24/7 mass raping women in utter secrecy, here are some ACTUAL facts:
Dube, S.R., Anda, R.F., Whitfield, C.L., et al. (2005). Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 430–438.
Briere, J. & Elliot, D.M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205–1222.
Holmes, W.C., & Slap, G.B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys: Definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 280, 1855–1862.
Lisak, D., Hopper, J. & Song, P. (1996). Factors in the cycle of violence: Gender rigidity and emotional constriction. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 721–743.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19–28.
Holmes, G.R., Offen, L., & Waller, G. (1997). See n
You're going to ask for a citation in the most pretentious asshole way possible, while claiming you've found contradicting sources, and not provide those sources yourself? Let me take a guess, your sources also follow the trend of increasing absurdity by claiming 90%+ underreporting rates, right?
So you're not belittling men, you're just claiming that they simply can't help it because of their inferior chemical addled minds? That's almost word for word the same "logic" used by patronizing racists to justify their belief that blacks are mentally inferior.
The chance of a male or female to be sexually assaulted during their life is 1 in 6 for both both genders. Related to that women are more likely to abuse, more likely to commit abuse, commit more severe abuse on average, and to use a weapon than men. The reason you see such disparity in crime statistics is because the entire legal and judicial system is so absurdly tilted in favor of women that it's practically a kangaroo court; in many areas a man can't even be considered a victim of certain crimes because of how the laws are worded, and in the rare case a woman is prosecuted (assuming the rarer still case that she's actually convicted) women recieve incredibly disproportionately lenient sentencing compared to men.
As for all that "unwanted attention"... have you actually ever seen women in the real world? Women are no better than men, they just get a free pass because men are expected to like it or shut up.
If you could hit 1920x1200@70hz you should've been quite capable of 1600x1200@85hz, or at the very minimum 1024x768@85hz which was my go-to resolution until I finally went crazy with dual trinitrons. It sounds more like your issue had more to do with your choice of monitors than graphics cards. I've seen smaller trinitrons that can do much higher resolutions and refresh rates than larger ones, and other same-diagonal trinitrons that are far less impressive in their performance.
Well your problem there is that you're guessing refresh rates in the late 90's based off of a videocard that was discontinued before even 1995. That's like using a voodoo 3 when referring to 2004.
I think you've got that backwards. 100fps was the PC standard for high framerates, 60 for "average" performance, and 40 was considered the absolute minimum acceptable framerate. It wasn't until consolitis set in that FOV started getting narrower and narrower and the standard of performance was dropped from 60, to 40, to where we are now witho 30fps being "normal".
No, i didn't take it to the other extreme. That's the problem, people have become so accustomed to the idea that the law should be so utterly unbalanced in favor of corporations that even suggesting there should be a remedy available to citizens that corporations are actually afraid of is considered an "extreme" now. Any legal action in general is a shakedown for any non-rich individual, just FILING lawsuits is expensive enough to be a significant cost for most people. And it's NOT easy to even GET class certification... this isn't some thing people just walk down to the clerk's office and file one afternoon.
The fact that you honestly thought that it was right for you to be put in the position of either totally giving up the use of your property that you bought and paid for or giving up a fundamental remedy under the law to begin with shows just how far to the extreme your idea of "normal" has been pulled.
That's a complete fallacy, that someone (or something) hasn't done anything YET doesn't mean that there shouldn't be legitimate remedies available. By and large the majority of people never commit a crime worthy of jailtime, should jails not exist? Should they be immune to criminal prosecution? Valve hasn't done anything worthy of a class action suit YET, does that mean that they shouldn't ever be subject to one in the future?
Class action suits would hurt valve... well, guess what, that's the POINT. A remedy that's actually problematic enough for you that you don't consider breaking the law to me a minor business expense, the proverbial big stick.
You mean unlike what corporations do to everyone else all the time? How completely unfair and wrong for average people, who have to get attorneys and get a class certification to begin with (which costs a ton of money just to go through the motions for the court, no matter if theyre completely in the right or not), to actually have some kind of remedy that corporations are ACTUALLY AFRAID OF. No, that's just not right. Instead the filthy peasants should be stuck with non-remedies that corporations have no real motivation to avoid at all, just like how most are already "fined" such miniscule fractions of their profits that they can literally afford to break the law as a minor routine operating expense.
Or as I said elsewhere there's also the pesky problem that even with a billion or less people in the entire world we were still constantly making the dollar worth less and less gold over time. DO it today and you're going to wind up needing avogadro's number to figure out what your dollar's worth in gold.
We have a government where powerful politicians can openly claim that significant scientific theories are "lies from the pit of hell", and that came up with the TSA and Gitmo. They're inefficient and slow on purpose, do you really want these people to be able to take significant actions quickly and efficiently?
That might've worked when there were less than a billion people in the entire world but even then they had to keep making the dollar worth smaller and smaller amounts of gold to keep up. In a world of 7bn+ people... it's just not feasible
More than that... what I've come to realise is that they've been normalizing the "feel" of games as well. Tribes Ascend, Bad Company 2, Call of Duty: Whatever, and even Planetside 2 all feel like the same game with slightly different sounds and models. When I gave Planetside 2's beta a shot I realised the most effective strategy in a firefight was to play exactly like I was in Bad Company 2.
It's simple. Republicans claim that everything should be privatized because the government can't do anything right... and they prove this by making damn sure that the government can't get anything done.
Which would be why one particularly effective soundproofing product is called "Mass Loaded Vinyl". It's not the cheapest thing in the world, and it's heavy, but you can probably just drape it over the window like a blackout curtain and have it seal around the frame for a reasonable attenuation.
Again, you seem to be operating under the assumption that somehow magically forces actual legitimate discussion and not thoughtless rubber stamping something like someone christmas treeing a midterm.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that having to put down a decision magically forces them to actually do some thinking beforehand instead of just slapping down whatever they wanted like a stoner christmas treeing a midterm.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like the MAFIAA do with dynamic IP address holders?
A good analogy would be a bookshare table at the local library with each book having a stickynote of rules inside the cover, where putting a book on the table without said note is analogous to putting your code on github without a license.
Imho this situation reminds me of how one of my professors described communication, he said "You can not not communicate". I think the same thing applies here; the very fact you're using a website, one where there is simply no reasonably conceivable way to not know the entire point of the website, is communicating something about your intentions.
Actually humans are very formidable hunters for one simple reason: Virtually all predators on land will have to break off and try again after resting if their initial attack fails. Humans just shrug and set out at a comfortable jog after the one that got away and try poking it with a stick, and then when it runs off that time we'll keep following it again. And again. And again. And again, over and over until we've either killed it directly or until whatever we're hunting is simply too tired to move anymore.
We're pretty much the only species capable of that kind of sustained physical activity, almost everybody else is stronger or faster only in short bursts.
No, asking for sources or *gasp* investing a little of your own intellectual effort of your own and providing your own sources contradicting the original claim was standard. [Citation Needed] has pretty much always been one step shy of trolling at best, especially since it's most often used as a drive by or as part of the "accuse the other guy of what you're guilty of" trick...
Like yourself, for example. You start out with [citation needed] before claiming you had sources proving something else. Sources that you didn't provide then and still haven't provided now, even though you've expanded to borderline ad hominem claiming my "numbers are clearly made up" despite it being literally impossible to NOT find proof they aren't IF you'd done so much as a Feeling Lucky google search for "one in six male sexual assault".
As for your claims that women are 5x as likely to be victims of sexual assault... There's a little thing called a "sanity test". Basically you run a rough working of the numbers and see if the result is either definitively impossible or otherwise sufficiently implausible as to warrant further investigation. Now you claim your still undisclosed sources place a woman's odds of sexual assault over the age of 15 at 5x that of a man's, that means either women's odds are much higher than the odds I gave for men or men's odds are much lower than what I provided. The latter flat out fails the sanity test without even needing to think about it because the rate of confirmed crimes is already high enough to support a 1 in 6 rate of victimization for men, which leaves the former.
If a mans odds are 1 in 6 (ie ~16.66%), which you're about to be literally BURIED in the proof of regardless of the previous sanity test, that would make a woman's 5x greater odds ~83.3%. In other words it would be virtually a statistical certainty that every single woman in the united states would at some point in her life be sexually assaulted. As before the numbers completely fail the sanity test unless you also follow the claim that upwards of 90% of all sexual assaults are completely unreported and never discovered... but THAT in turn completely fails yet another sanity test: the nation's population simply cannot support the absolute number of offenses that would be required to satisfy those probabilities. With the confirmed facts about condom use and physical violence it's just not possible for that quantity of sexual assaults to be taking place in utter secrecy, it'd basically be the sexual assault equivalent of living in Buffy The Vampire Slayer or renting a room in Halliwell Manor and never noticing anything supernatural.
Now if you'd like to rejoin the real world, where we don't have entire suburbs dedicated to 24/7 mass raping women in utter secrecy, here are some ACTUAL facts:
Dube, S.R., Anda, R.F., Whitfield, C.L., et al. (2005). Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 430–438.
Briere, J. & Elliot, D.M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205–1222.
Holmes, W.C., & Slap, G.B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys: Definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 280, 1855–1862.
Lisak, D., Hopper, J. & Song, P. (1996). Factors in the cycle of violence: Gender rigidity and emotional constriction. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 721–743.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19–28.
Holmes, G.R., Offen, L., & Waller, G. (1997). See n
You're going to ask for a citation in the most pretentious asshole way possible, while claiming you've found contradicting sources, and not provide those sources yourself? Let me take a guess, your sources also follow the trend of increasing absurdity by claiming 90%+ underreporting rates, right?
So you're not belittling men, you're just claiming that they simply can't help it because of their inferior chemical addled minds? That's almost word for word the same "logic" used by patronizing racists to justify their belief that blacks are mentally inferior.
The chance of a male or female to be sexually assaulted during their life is 1 in 6 for both both genders. Related to that women are more likely to abuse, more likely to commit abuse, commit more severe abuse on average, and to use a weapon than men. The reason you see such disparity in crime statistics is because the entire legal and judicial system is so absurdly tilted in favor of women that it's practically a kangaroo court; in many areas a man can't even be considered a victim of certain crimes because of how the laws are worded, and in the rare case a woman is prosecuted (assuming the rarer still case that she's actually convicted) women recieve incredibly disproportionately lenient sentencing compared to men.
As for all that "unwanted attention"... have you actually ever seen women in the real world? Women are no better than men, they just get a free pass because men are expected to like it or shut up.
So basically what you want is an Asus Transformer?
If you could hit 1920x1200@70hz you should've been quite capable of 1600x1200@85hz, or at the very minimum 1024x768@85hz which was my go-to resolution until I finally went crazy with dual trinitrons. It sounds more like your issue had more to do with your choice of monitors than graphics cards. I've seen smaller trinitrons that can do much higher resolutions and refresh rates than larger ones, and other same-diagonal trinitrons that are far less impressive in their performance.
Well your problem there is that you're guessing refresh rates in the late 90's based off of a videocard that was discontinued before even 1995. That's like using a voodoo 3 when referring to 2004.
1600x1200@100hz or up to 2048x1536@85hz. Or did you mean the monitors I used back in the 90s? Never had one that was worse than 1024x768@85hz.
I think you've got that backwards. 100fps was the PC standard for high framerates, 60 for "average" performance, and 40 was considered the absolute minimum acceptable framerate. It wasn't until consolitis set in that FOV started getting narrower and narrower and the standard of performance was dropped from 60, to 40, to where we are now witho 30fps being "normal".
No, i didn't take it to the other extreme. That's the problem, people have become so accustomed to the idea that the law should be so utterly unbalanced in favor of corporations that even suggesting there should be a remedy available to citizens that corporations are actually afraid of is considered an "extreme" now. Any legal action in general is a shakedown for any non-rich individual, just FILING lawsuits is expensive enough to be a significant cost for most people. And it's NOT easy to even GET class certification... this isn't some thing people just walk down to the clerk's office and file one afternoon.
The fact that you honestly thought that it was right for you to be put in the position of either totally giving up the use of your property that you bought and paid for or giving up a fundamental remedy under the law to begin with shows just how far to the extreme your idea of "normal" has been pulled.
That's a complete fallacy, that someone (or something) hasn't done anything YET doesn't mean that there shouldn't be legitimate remedies available. By and large the majority of people never commit a crime worthy of jailtime, should jails not exist? Should they be immune to criminal prosecution? Valve hasn't done anything worthy of a class action suit YET, does that mean that they shouldn't ever be subject to one in the future?
Class action suits would hurt valve... well, guess what, that's the POINT. A remedy that's actually problematic enough for you that you don't consider breaking the law to me a minor business expense, the proverbial big stick.
Citation, and a spellchecker, needed.
You mean unlike what corporations do to everyone else all the time? How completely unfair and wrong for average people, who have to get attorneys and get a class certification to begin with (which costs a ton of money just to go through the motions for the court, no matter if theyre completely in the right or not), to actually have some kind of remedy that corporations are ACTUALLY AFRAID OF. No, that's just not right. Instead the filthy peasants should be stuck with non-remedies that corporations have no real motivation to avoid at all, just like how most are already "fined" such miniscule fractions of their profits that they can literally afford to break the law as a minor routine operating expense.
And how is an X standard where you constantly keep making the dollar worth less and less X any different than fiat currency alterations?
Or as I said elsewhere there's also the pesky problem that even with a billion or less people in the entire world we were still constantly making the dollar worth less and less gold over time. DO it today and you're going to wind up needing avogadro's number to figure out what your dollar's worth in gold.
We have a government where powerful politicians can openly claim that significant scientific theories are "lies from the pit of hell", and that came up with the TSA and Gitmo. They're inefficient and slow on purpose, do you really want these people to be able to take significant actions quickly and efficiently?
That might've worked when there were less than a billion people in the entire world but even then they had to keep making the dollar worth smaller and smaller amounts of gold to keep up. In a world of 7bn+ people... it's just not feasible
More than that... what I've come to realise is that they've been normalizing the "feel" of games as well. Tribes Ascend, Bad Company 2, Call of Duty: Whatever, and even Planetside 2 all feel like the same game with slightly different sounds and models. When I gave Planetside 2's beta a shot I realised the most effective strategy in a firefight was to play exactly like I was in Bad Company 2.
It's simple. Republicans claim that everything should be privatized because the government can't do anything right... and they prove this by making damn sure that the government can't get anything done.
Which would be why one particularly effective soundproofing product is called "Mass Loaded Vinyl". It's not the cheapest thing in the world, and it's heavy, but you can probably just drape it over the window like a blackout curtain and have it seal around the frame for a reasonable attenuation.
I was playing Tribes2 on 64 player servers on a ~56K without it being unplayably laggy about a decade ago.
Again, you seem to be operating under the assumption that somehow magically forces actual legitimate discussion and not thoughtless rubber stamping something like someone christmas treeing a midterm.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that having to put down a decision magically forces them to actually do some thinking beforehand instead of just slapping down whatever they wanted like a stoner christmas treeing a midterm.