The gender bias in professional sports *is* a huge problem
Rubbish. Women aren't as good at men in sports. It's as simple as that. It's not the oft-cited "upper body strength" either. It's everything. The more any given "sport" requires strength, speed, agility, power, endurance, or any other physical trait the more men dominate it.
So no, women don't get the same TV coverage, etc.. except in niche cases where basically they are hot. I'll tell you what - if you want equality how about we end all unisex sports. Make it so that women and men must all play in the same field of competition in all sports - let's see how that works out.
Oh, not because this is a real or important issue. I find "diversity" studies in technical fields laughable. You can have more diversity in relevant thought between two white males who graduated from different schools than between a white male and a black female CS graduate. Race and sex are not equal to diversity.
No, I hope this works because I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. So very, very tired.
You are lying. I'll tell you what - go to your local wedding cake store and tell them you're having a Nazi themed wedding - see if they'll make you your cake with a Swastika on it.
Lol. So it's cool to force someone to photograph you at your wedding when they don't want to?
Where does this end? What if the photographer is a sweet 18 year old Mormon girl and they decide their wedding will have lots of fisting and scissoring, and maybe some gay sex. Can you still force her to show up and photograph it?
My way is much easier - let people do what the fuck they want. If you don't want to provide services to a gay wedding, that's cool. Maybe they can find someone else. If you don't want to shoot photographs at a Christian wedding - more power to you. Probably some nice alternatives there.
You guys crack me up. It's so _cu-cu-cuhraaaazy!_ that someone would think people should not be forced to associate with or provide their work or their property to someone they hate. Who cares _why_ they hate them, people are just stupid usually but it's some sort of a kissing cousin to indentured servitude.
I for one can't wait until a Church of Satanic Racism member goes to a nice liberal photographer in Berkeley and demands that they come film their kinky sex-act wedding where they denigrate all other races and make up cool racist satan songs. Boy will that lawsuit be a doozy.
Yeah, those are a real problem nowadays. You could repeal every piece of the Civil Rights Act that refers to the private domain and it would have 0 impact today.
Yes. And yes business should have this right. Why is it you lot think it's such an awesome argument to shift from discrimination against gays to discrimination against blacks? Do you think that argument helps you?
The US Constitution has been fucked by the Civil Rights act, at least parts of it. All parts relating to government entities are 100% necessary and correct. All the parts relating to how private individuals behave in a business are contrary to the freedom of association we're supposed to have.
We've become a nation of weaklings and bitches. Instead of just not patronizing discriminatory businesses (can you fucking imagine the uproar over a business with a "no blacks" or "no gays" sign?) we think we have to appeal to the iron fist of the law.
You're trying to outlaw being an asshole. This makes you the king of the Assholes.
Law sounds great to me other than the religious bullshit. Private individuals should be able to associate with whomever they like for any dumbass reason they like. You don't like blacks? Put up a "no blacks allowed" sign - I'm sure your business will do _great_. Same with gays, or atheists, or whoever.
You people are so fucking weak, you seem to think that allowing people the right to be assholes will somehow upset the universe. We'll get along fine.
Lol, it's amusing you think being against illegal immigrants is "racist". God I wish Canadians would stream over the border, spit out kids and soak up education and welfare dollars. Then when the northern states complained the heads asploding over being unable to label them "racists" would be awesome.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the god damned white-hairs. They will vote in that corrupt jackass Arpaio no matter what - he could be caught, dick in hand, with a 10 year old boy and they would still vote for him.
And the religious aspect of the bill is idiotic. We've officially become a country that thinks if you believe some weird shit that you should have special privileges. "Oh, I believe this bible so I should be able to be exempt from Obamacare!" or "Oh, I believe in a 12-armed god so must wear this fucking cool hat and can't wear shorts!".
But I believe the legitimate part of this is the attempt to force people to associate with people they do not want to. In New Mexico, they told some photographer she must take pictures at a Lesbian wedding even though she doesn't want to. Ridiculous. She should take the pictures then smear them in shit while she hands them over.
You're fucking crazy. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's called "freedom of association", pretty sure it's somewhere in the Constitution.
I don't think human rights get much more fundamental than "I fucking hate you." Unless you're assaulting, robbing, defrauding, or legally defaming someone you have every right to hate them and to choose not to associate with them.
So Arizona's law is dumb because of the religious jibba jabba, but they have one thing correct - our rights to the freedom of association are being eroded. If you hate Lesbians and don't want to shoot photographs at their wedding, then what the fuck kind of sense does it make to _force_ you to do so? Yeah...no.
Good thing they just made the amazing discovery that a software based (or hardware based) voice system allows the owners of said system to determine who is calling whom, and didn't detail who these companies with a (lol) "bad business model".
Wow, you mean a corporation has access to the numbers dialed by the people within the corporation!? Quick, call Ripley's Believe it or Not - I think I found something for the "believe it" pile!
I went to school in the 80's and early 90's. Wouldn't it be humorous if I received a better education using old fashioned books, good teachers, a reasonable class size, etc.. than most Fancy Pants McMillenials who had a cool iPad with animations and whatnot?
These people are fucking crazy. By all means use technology judiciously in education, but pretending it is the end-all be-all of educational quality is god damned idiotic.
You mean other than people who use the Xbox for media applications, use voice control for other reasons, play games like you mention or sports/exercise games, play Zoo Tycoon or any of the other dozens of Kinect games now or the many in the pipeline? Other than all the other potential new types of games and apps that Kinect could enable?
Umm, yeah. I guess you got me there. Other than all of that I can't think of the value for "anyone else".
By tax structure you mean confiscation, right? Taking money in a fair, even a reasonably progressive, manner to provide government services and a reasonable social safety net is called "taxation" and I have no issue with it.
What you are describing is simply redistributive confiscation. Good luck with that, asshole.
I was with you until the last sentence, then you went off the fucking rails.
We should recognise programming isn't necessarily a safe job and demand better rights.
Lolwut? Programming is a very safe job. I think you should go to a coal mine and tell the miners about how dangerous your job is and that they should punch you in the forehead and walk away laughing and shaking their heads in disbelief.
We don't need any more rights. As a fat programmer, I don't blame my job I blame me for stuffing my face and not exercising enough. I don't need to "demand better rights" to solve either of those issues.
Rubbish point. The idea of MS making the Kinect "optional" on the 360 is a non starter. It's not even worth discussing. They're going to make it some optional doodad some developers may decide to support like the original, where they had no option to make it mandatory with the 360? No. Of course not.
They had to make it mandatory and included with the One, and it's a bet on the future. Whether that bet pays off remains to be seen...
Oh, no. It's idiotic. MS had no choice but to include Kinect, you don't want to fragment your developers and make them decide to use Kinect or not based on who has one. Of course, given a fresh start, MS had to include the Kinect so it was guaranteed to be available. Anything else is idiotic and not worth considering as a valid opinion.
Bullshit argument. The One and PS4 both have noticeably better graphics capabilities than the 360/PS3 when fully utilized. Performance is needed, but the small difference between the PS4 and One will be consumed by differences in programmer abilities, architecture of the game, and other optimizations.
Lol, utter rubbish. The Kinect is the primary reason it costs more, it's silly to argue that point. But they had to do it if they want the Kinect to take off and offer new sorts of gaming and entertainment options in the near future.
As for the performance argument, good thing I don't use my One to mine bitcoins or I'd be real upset about a small theoretical performance advantage (the One's GPUs are clocked higher, so the difference isn't as big as usually cited). In real games it makes no real difference.
You're missing a fairly obvious point. Without it coming bundled, developers must fragment based on (has_Kinect). It's a shitty way to do things, and this article is idiotic.
With a guaranteed Kinect, developers can start to use it in either subtle or in grand ways.
Slashdot Mirror
The gender bias in professional sports *is* a huge problem
Rubbish. Women aren't as good at men in sports. It's as simple as that. It's not the oft-cited "upper body strength" either. It's everything. The more any given "sport" requires strength, speed, agility, power, endurance, or any other physical trait the more men dominate it.
So no, women don't get the same TV coverage, etc.. except in niche cases where basically they are hot. I'll tell you what - if you want equality how about we end all unisex sports. Make it so that women and men must all play in the same field of competition in all sports - let's see how that works out.
I for one fervently hope so.
Oh, not because this is a real or important issue. I find "diversity" studies in technical fields laughable. You can have more diversity in relevant thought between two white males who graduated from different schools than between a white male and a black female CS graduate. Race and sex are not equal to diversity.
No, I hope this works because I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. So very, very tired.
You are lying. I'll tell you what - go to your local wedding cake store and tell them you're having a Nazi themed wedding - see if they'll make you your cake with a Swastika on it.
Lol. So it's cool to force someone to photograph you at your wedding when they don't want to?
Where does this end? What if the photographer is a sweet 18 year old Mormon girl and they decide their wedding will have lots of fisting and scissoring, and maybe some gay sex. Can you still force her to show up and photograph it?
My way is much easier - let people do what the fuck they want. If you don't want to provide services to a gay wedding, that's cool. Maybe they can find someone else. If you don't want to shoot photographs at a Christian wedding - more power to you. Probably some nice alternatives there.
Yes. I would agree.
What now?
You guys crack me up. It's so _cu-cu-cuhraaaazy!_ that someone would think people should not be forced to associate with or provide their work or their property to someone they hate. Who cares _why_ they hate them, people are just stupid usually but it's some sort of a kissing cousin to indentured servitude.
I for one can't wait until a Church of Satanic Racism member goes to a nice liberal photographer in Berkeley and demands that they come film their kinky sex-act wedding where they denigrate all other races and make up cool racist satan songs. Boy will that lawsuit be a doozy.
Yeah, those are a real problem nowadays. You could repeal every piece of the Civil Rights Act that refers to the private domain and it would have 0 impact today.
Yes. And yes business should have this right. Why is it you lot think it's such an awesome argument to shift from discrimination against gays to discrimination against blacks? Do you think that argument helps you?
The US Constitution has been fucked by the Civil Rights act, at least parts of it. All parts relating to government entities are 100% necessary and correct. All the parts relating to how private individuals behave in a business are contrary to the freedom of association we're supposed to have.
We've become a nation of weaklings and bitches. Instead of just not patronizing discriminatory businesses (can you fucking imagine the uproar over a business with a "no blacks" or "no gays" sign?) we think we have to appeal to the iron fist of the law.
You're trying to outlaw being an asshole. This makes you the king of the Assholes.
Law sounds great to me other than the religious bullshit. Private individuals should be able to associate with whomever they like for any dumbass reason they like. You don't like blacks? Put up a "no blacks allowed" sign - I'm sure your business will do _great_. Same with gays, or atheists, or whoever.
You people are so fucking weak, you seem to think that allowing people the right to be assholes will somehow upset the universe. We'll get along fine.
Lol, it's amusing you think being against illegal immigrants is "racist". God I wish Canadians would stream over the border, spit out kids and soak up education and welfare dollars. Then when the northern states complained the heads asploding over being unable to label them "racists" would be awesome.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the god damned white-hairs. They will vote in that corrupt jackass Arpaio no matter what - he could be caught, dick in hand, with a 10 year old boy and they would still vote for him.
And the religious aspect of the bill is idiotic. We've officially become a country that thinks if you believe some weird shit that you should have special privileges. "Oh, I believe this bible so I should be able to be exempt from Obamacare!" or "Oh, I believe in a 12-armed god so must wear this fucking cool hat and can't wear shorts!".
But I believe the legitimate part of this is the attempt to force people to associate with people they do not want to. In New Mexico, they told some photographer she must take pictures at a Lesbian wedding even though she doesn't want to. Ridiculous. She should take the pictures then smear them in shit while she hands them over.
You're fucking crazy. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's called "freedom of association", pretty sure it's somewhere in the Constitution.
I don't think human rights get much more fundamental than "I fucking hate you." Unless you're assaulting, robbing, defrauding, or legally defaming someone you have every right to hate them and to choose not to associate with them.
So Arizona's law is dumb because of the religious jibba jabba, but they have one thing correct - our rights to the freedom of association are being eroded. If you hate Lesbians and don't want to shoot photographs at their wedding, then what the fuck kind of sense does it make to _force_ you to do so? Yeah...no.
Good thing they just made the amazing discovery that a software based (or hardware based) voice system allows the owners of said system to determine who is calling whom, and didn't detail who these companies with a (lol) "bad business model".
Wow, you mean a corporation has access to the numbers dialed by the people within the corporation!? Quick, call Ripley's Believe it or Not - I think I found something for the "believe it" pile!
I went to school in the 80's and early 90's. Wouldn't it be humorous if I received a better education using old fashioned books, good teachers, a reasonable class size, etc.. than most Fancy Pants McMillenials who had a cool iPad with animations and whatnot?
These people are fucking crazy. By all means use technology judiciously in education, but pretending it is the end-all be-all of educational quality is god damned idiotic.
Lol. Bitter, huh? Hows that Bitcoin investment doing today, brohan? Lolzers.
You mean other than people who use the Xbox for media applications, use voice control for other reasons, play games like you mention or sports/exercise games, play Zoo Tycoon or any of the other dozens of Kinect games now or the many in the pipeline? Other than all the other potential new types of games and apps that Kinect could enable?
Umm, yeah. I guess you got me there. Other than all of that I can't think of the value for "anyone else".
They work at company X instead of company Y, that's what. Competition - go look it up.
Alas for your dear socialist heart, people are not paid based on their contributions to (lol) "society". They are paid based on market value.
By tax structure you mean confiscation, right? Taking money in a fair, even a reasonably progressive, manner to provide government services and a reasonable social safety net is called "taxation" and I have no issue with it.
What you are describing is simply redistributive confiscation. Good luck with that, asshole.
I was with you until the last sentence, then you went off the fucking rails.
We should recognise programming isn't necessarily a safe job and demand better rights.
Lolwut? Programming is a very safe job. I think you should go to a coal mine and tell the miners about how dangerous your job is and that they should punch you in the forehead and walk away laughing and shaking their heads in disbelief.
We don't need any more rights. As a fat programmer, I don't blame my job I blame me for stuffing my face and not exercising enough. I don't need to "demand better rights" to solve either of those issues.
Rubbish point. The idea of MS making the Kinect "optional" on the 360 is a non starter. It's not even worth discussing. They're going to make it some optional doodad some developers may decide to support like the original, where they had no option to make it mandatory with the 360? No. Of course not.
They had to make it mandatory and included with the One, and it's a bet on the future. Whether that bet pays off remains to be seen...
Oh, no. It's idiotic. MS had no choice but to include Kinect, you don't want to fragment your developers and make them decide to use Kinect or not based on who has one. Of course, given a fresh start, MS had to include the Kinect so it was guaranteed to be available. Anything else is idiotic and not worth considering as a valid opinion.
Bullshit argument. The One and PS4 both have noticeably better graphics capabilities than the 360/PS3 when fully utilized. Performance is needed, but the small difference between the PS4 and One will be consumed by differences in programmer abilities, architecture of the game, and other optimizations.
Lol, utter rubbish. The Kinect is the primary reason it costs more, it's silly to argue that point. But they had to do it if they want the Kinect to take off and offer new sorts of gaming and entertainment options in the near future.
As for the performance argument, good thing I don't use my One to mine bitcoins or I'd be real upset about a small theoretical performance advantage (the One's GPUs are clocked higher, so the difference isn't as big as usually cited). In real games it makes no real difference.
You're missing a fairly obvious point. Without it coming bundled, developers must fragment based on (has_Kinect). It's a shitty way to do things, and this article is idiotic.
With a guaranteed Kinect, developers can start to use it in either subtle or in grand ways.