Violence in video games... I really wonder how that will get classified.
I know video pinball used to completly drive me nuts. (The computer is cheating!) Hell, I remember throwing my paddle across the room while playing Breakout on my Atari years back. I think The Incredible Machine had it in for me as well.
You really wanted to stay away from me for a little bit after that... that excess adrenaline doesn't go away so fast.
Oddly enough, FPS games don't invoke that same level of response
I wrote a nice replacement for Front Row that would do full screen on any of my attached screens, on screen menuing, browseable, etc...
It worked great! I ripped all my Firefly episodes and had them randomly playing on a "Channel" from my computer that is distibuted throughout the house. Wonderful for background stuff. I recorded a bunch of music videos from VH1/MTv/etc, and have a pretty good music video station that I run around the house when guests are around.
Problem! I can't play DRMd files. The Quicktime API won't recognize the files, nor deal with them. I submitted a bug report, since there were no limitations mentioned anywhere. After over a month of sitting around, I finally got a response: "It works as designed".
Having the hot spares doesn't matter if you are looking at a software problem.
The corporate question becomes who can you call for troubleshooting support that is "guaranteed" to help you. (If the OSS folk don't answer your question, they don't lose money/contract)
Oddly enough I get a much better response through RDP than I ever get via VNC.
Anyway, for my uses, VNC is just not adequate.
I depend on having my own session... I don't remotely control the keyboard/mouse (I don't know who is at the screen). With VNC, I can just pop in, do what I need, and pop out. In fact, the ability to have two simultaneous sessions has saved my bacon more than once.
It is also handy to have sound piped through, I like sound as an alternate cue when I'm multitasking.
Having printers automatically redirected on login, so I can print to my local printer from the remote machine has been very handy from time to time as well.
>I don't have the weight to convince management to deploy alias scripts to all of the servers we support.
I've only watched one episode of Alias, but it didn't really draw me in. But, irrespective of that, I don't know why you'd want to put the scripts to copyrighted shows on your servers, especially if they are publicly available.
Maybe it's a Linux thing? people just want to do everything on Linux =-)
>"Does seem to agree?" >>Does seem? >>It either does, or it doesn't.
Fine. Following the link, and reading section C, it is simple enough to see that the American Bar Association, explicitly agrees with my opinion as it relates to criminal cases.
1. Jury Trial a. A judge rules on questions of law at a jury trial. (1) What evidence is permitted to be heard by the jury. (2) What attorneys can argue before a jury. (3) Whether there is probable cause. (4) Whether evidence should be suppressed.
>The issue I'm taking up with you is that your definition of a Judge, doesn't seem to involve any actual judging .
C.1.a.1 involves judging how to apply law to questions of law C.1.a.2 involves judging what is able to be argued C.1.a.3 involves judging whether something meets a particular burden to probable cause C.1.a.4 involves judging whether a particular item of evidence should be allowed.
Each of these can deeply affect the outcome of a case, but does not involve actually judging the facts of the case. Only rules of law.
So, who judges issues of fact? From the same link:
> is someone who has spent years in the courtroom as a lawyer
Yeah, since you know the judges have seen your exact same case come by then a thousand times won't have any problems listening carefully and absorbing every detail. Oh, wait, it was actually different? too bad
And, of course, none of us has ever had to look at a situation in our lives and determine which side to believe?
A judge is there to make sure the rules of law and court procedure are followed.
In addition to the above comments, take into account that we don't actually vote for president. We vote for the electors that the state will send to vote for the president. The election methods are just how each state has decided to allow its citizens to choose its electors.
They don't train only in the virtual world either I assume.
I'm guessing that when you mix real firearms training, you can throw in some virtual stuff to help work out strategic thinking, approach, etc. But you still have to have the real training, or else nothing will stick.
>Once it's in my hands, it's MY device, not theirs. They can choose not to support that configuration, but they should not be able to prevent it.
They don't prevent it though. They are choosing not to support a particular method of getting Real music onto your device. There are other methods. You can buy Real's music, and get it on your iPod. It's a non-trivial exercise, but it is doable. Maybe Real is preventing you from decoding their music? Apple's not preventing you, they're just not making it easy.
Similarly... I buy a Ford. I later buy a Chevy engine. Should I be mad at Ford that it doesn't work? Or should I be mad at Chevy. Neither is preventing me from trying. I own both pieces, and can use them how I like.
The way I see it at the moment is you are either going to be weird, stupid, or a pirate:
If you uninstall the software from your original machine, and put it on your other box, fine... What are you going to put on your shiny new Mac? Linux or XP? If that's the case, why not just put those on your "other" machine. (This is "weird" to me)
If you aren't going to install anything on the new Mac, you just paid $x,000 for a single copy of MacOS X... good job. (This is "stupid" to me) Or if you're using the OS on both, you are infringing the copyright by making pirated copies of the software.
I take that more as Apple trying to control who can make money off their devices. That is different from controlling what I can put on the device. (even though it has similar effects)
>Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy.
Lots of directions to go here... which one are you headed? I personally don't have a problem with "The thing just ain't guaranteed to work well on stuff that ain't ours, and we don't want those bad experiences to color people's view of our product" I also don't have a problem with "Use our OS on our machine because we want to sell machines"... That's their right if they choose. It's not arrogance... it's a choice of business models.
(Not to say Teh Steve isn't arrogant... just I don't think those are symptoms of that arrogance)
but only within certain boundaries. Our company standardizes on a language in each of our different projects. There is also a standardized interface between projects, so we don't have the multiple languages problem.
It gives us flexibility, but also leaves us room to react as needed.
This reminds me my languages class in college...
We had to do the same three projects in 4 different language styles (C, Lisp, Prolog, etc...) From that we really learned how painful a language can be if it is being forced, and how wonderful they can be when used for what they were designed for.
> How is the ESRB's credibility damaged?
Step into the mind of someone not on Slashdot...
Joe Consumer: The ESRB says this game isn't an Adults Only game, and they govern this stuff, so this is safe for me to get.
The News: [Coffee Mod]
Joe Consumer: WTF? The ESRB lied! They are supposed to protect me.
It doesn't matter whether the ESRB was lied to or not... Joe Consumer isn't going to do the research into such a trivial venture. (If he was, we wouldn't need ESRB at all anyway)
Even more practically though, if you assume that the mod was left in so that it could be found and activated later, you could argue that the ESRB just doesn't have enough teeth to scare developers into revealing everything in their games. (This isn't an uncommon belief, so it can't just be ignored when factoring credibilty over a large group)
No teeth = no credibility
I know I've had to write up some of the super-applicant-that-doesn't-exist type postings, and there was a less evil rational. (Though, it's not my choice to do it this way... )
There was a chance we'd actually get what we asked for, and for the folk that had most things, they were confident enough to apply. That weeded out some weaker applicants, and our environment really needed people with the attitude "I don't know that much about that, but I'm sure I can figure it out", and actually be able to do so.
> This "email worm" is more like a virus than a worm
That was kind of my point. These aren't always clearly separated enough that someone can say "C'mon! of course is THIS and not THAT"
It exhibits some wormish properties, and it exhibits some virusish properties. By strict definition of either, it is neither, but something different. (It doesn't spread entirely without intervention; nor does it infect an executable)
A computer worm is a self-replicating computer program, similar to a computer virus. A virus attaches itself to, and becomes part of, another executable program; however, a worm is self-contained and does not need to be part of another program to propagate itself....The main difference between a computer virus and a worm is that a virus can not propagate by itself whereas worms can. A worm uses a network to send copies of itself to other systems and it does so without any intervention
This thing (from what little I read) emails itself around when it can... which would qualify it as a worm. I'm a little fuzzy on the intervention part... the user has to to the initial activation, which could be intervention, but then again you have to do the initial activation with viruses, so I don't think that qualifies.
This thing doesn't seem to make itself part of another executable persé, so it wouldn't quite qualify as a virus.
I remember playing a flight sim/attack game many years ago on my Quadra 650 w/ 3 screens.
It was great. The main screen showed the front view. The left screen showed the left view, and I think you can work out what the right screen showed =-)
Now... apply that to FPS (and give me the motion sensors like in Marathon), and I might get interested in that genre again.
You're talking about academic minutae,and not in terms of practicality.
> you don't respond to the thesis; namely that race is a "holistic" convention while homosexuality is not
Sure I did. I tried to show you that in practical terms of a social/political response there is no difference between the two. People get killed for being black. People get killed for being gay.
Whether the black people were killed because they had black skin, because they came from Africa (if they did in any fashion), because they share some sort of lineage, whatever, it doesn't matter. They got killed because they were black.
Whether a gay person is targetted because someone thought that they chose to be gay, someone's religion says that it is an abomination, or they just don't like the idea of gayness in the world, it doesn't matter. The gay person was targetted.
The folks that go around hassling gay people aren't writing doctoral theses on cultural anthropology.
>Race is not only something that you can change (just get a skin transplant!), it has been changing constantly over the course of history due to wavering classifications.
You don't help your argument by picking such outlandish examples. full skin transplant?
If gayness is part of a person, then they can change it... simply lobotmize the portions of the brain that affect sexual drive.
Back in the real world, it is simply not an option to change your race (or skin color, or whatever... yes, I'm being a little vague here on the definition. Again, we are talking about how people deal with the rest of the world. The definitions just don't matter. If it makes you happy, insert whatever possible physical means of identifying humans you wish)
Race (or perceived race, or racial class, or apparent lineage, whatever) is something that many humans use to differentiate each other for the porposes of discrimination and harrassment.
> "race" is an abstraction
Correct. It is an abstraction that is used differently by different groups, because not every person in the world is either equipped or energized enough to speak precisely on the topic. When blacks were getting lynched, did it matter that the psychos weren't using a scientific definition of race? No. The guy had black skin. Done/overwith.
Race is an abstraction that represents a state of being. (albeit a different meaning for some people)
>Therefore your comaparison of homosexuals to any race is illogical because "gay" is a state of being and "race" is an abstraction
Nope. An orange is food. I'm not comparing them in your narrow definitions. I'm comparing them in how they are used in the scenario we're talking about.
A brick is a building block. I can compare oranges and bricks in terms of their usefulness as weapons.
> "gay" is a state of being
Both blackness and gayness represent a state of being.
> controversy is not inherent to them as people
I never said it was inherent to them as people. My experience is quite the opposite. However, in groups of sufficient size (say, like the membership in WOW), you can guarantee that someone will disagree with what they perceive as the choice to be gay that they will act on it. (Note, I didn't say that I believe it's a choice... but many people do)
>It is impossible for there to be any "controversy" over "being gay", because they (gays) are not proposing any argument by simply existing
If you could create a community where there were only gay people (and those accepting gay people), and keep them completely separate from the group of people who hate gays, you might have a point.
But we live in a different world.
Recipe for controversy: Take one group of people that is disliked for any reason. Mix in a group of people that dislike them for that reason. Simmer in an environment where their needs collide.
That recipe is currently boiling over in many places. Failure to plan for th
I don't think they're worried about that direction this time. That is, not that the LGBT folks will start harrassing, but that they will be targetted. Once targetted, they will either leave the service, take it, or fight back.
If they leave, that's a bad thing for Blizzard... "I'm getting outta this place"
If they stay and take it, Blizzard starts to get associated with homophobia... "Geez it's been like this forever, why don't they do something about it?"
If they stay and fight back, you've got the WOW equivalent of flamewars just waiting to pop up which will cause all sort of other people to leave. "Get out fag... no, you get out neocon... the Bible says I must smite you... you can actually read?... etc"
>It doesn't mean you *have* to
But the offense taken by Blizzard's decision seems to indicate they believe they have some sort of right to have that group. And where one's rights are being denied, in some sense, you have to stand up to it.
> no fundamentally inherent difference between a white person and a black person besides the pigmentation of their skin
Let see here, something that you can't change, that is currently the source of alot of controversy in most countries.
> A gay, however, is dealing with the consequneces of a very real biological trait
Something else that you can't change, that is currently the source of alot of controversy in most countries.
Also, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait A trait may be any single feature or quantifiable measurement of an organism. Are you saying that you can't quantifiably measure a person's color? Or are you saying that a person is free to change their color?
>Therefore, any person that emphasizes "differences" between the two races is doing so in the context of cultural anthropology
You are inserting cultural anthropology into the discussion... just because that is where you are coming from doesn't mean that's where I'm coming from.
Specifically, how it refers to it being the holistic study of humanity.
Are you really trying to divorce gay issues from being part of humanity? How is skin color human, but sexual orientation not?
> To link the two examples reveals a fundamental misunderstanding/miseduacation about homosexuality, and that is to prescribe it some kind of "external" status to the subject that is based in "conception"
Where do you get that? In what I said, what could possibly have implied that I proscribed an element of choice to once orientation? I think you are reading into what is there, and what you are used to arguing against.
> Blizzard would have us believe that being gay is something inherently controversial
Seriously, what color is the sky on your world? They implied nothing inherent. They only implied that it was controversial. Obviously it is. Clearly it will be for a long time to come. I certainly don't expect to see the world's overall opinion on orientation and identity to clear up in the length of time the WOW is going to be available online.
Slashdot Mirror
>But then again, if you have to constantly watch them, do you really want them as employees? :-)
More importantly, If you have to constantly watch then, does your boss want you as an employee?
Violence in video games... I really wonder how that will get classified.
I know video pinball used to completly drive me nuts. (The computer is cheating!)
Hell, I remember throwing my paddle across the room while playing Breakout on my Atari years back.
I think The Incredible Machine had it in for me as well.
You really wanted to stay away from me for a little bit after that... that excess adrenaline doesn't go away so fast.
Oddly enough, FPS games don't invoke that same level of response
> I hardly even notice the DRM
As a consumer, I agree.
As a developer... I disagree.
I wrote a nice replacement for Front Row that would do full screen on any of my attached screens, on screen menuing, browseable, etc...
It worked great! I ripped all my Firefly episodes and had them randomly playing on a "Channel" from my computer that is distibuted throughout the house. Wonderful for background stuff. I recorded a bunch of music videos from VH1/MTv/etc, and have a pretty good music video station that I run around the house when guests are around.
Problem! I can't play DRMd files. The Quicktime API won't recognize the files, nor deal with them. I submitted a bug report, since there were no limitations mentioned anywhere. After over a month of sitting around, I finally got a response: "It works as designed".
Having the hot spares doesn't matter if you are looking at a software problem.
The corporate question becomes who can you call for troubleshooting support that is "guaranteed" to help you.
(If the OSS folk don't answer your question, they don't lose money/contract)
Oddly enough I get a much better response through RDP than I ever get via VNC.
Anyway, for my uses, VNC is just not adequate.
I depend on having my own session... I don't remotely control the keyboard/mouse (I don't know who is at the screen). With VNC, I can just pop in, do what I need, and pop out. In fact, the ability to have two simultaneous sessions has saved my bacon more than once.
It is also handy to have sound piped through, I like sound as an alternate cue when I'm multitasking.
Having printers automatically redirected on login, so I can print to my local printer from the remote machine has been very handy from time to time as well.
>I don't have the weight to convince management to deploy alias scripts to all of the servers we support.
I've only watched one episode of Alias, but it didn't really draw me in. But, irrespective of that, I don't know why you'd want to put the scripts to copyrighted shows on your servers, especially if they are publicly available.
Maybe it's a Linux thing? people just want to do everything on Linux =-)
>"Does seem to agree?"
>>Does seem?
>>It either does, or it doesn't.
Fine. Following the link, and reading section C, it is simple enough to see that the American Bar Association, explicitly agrees with my opinion as it relates to criminal cases.
1. Jury Trial
a. A judge rules on questions of law at a jury trial.
(1) What evidence is permitted to be heard by the jury.
(2) What attorneys can argue before a jury.
(3) Whether there is probable cause.
(4) Whether evidence should be suppressed.
>The issue I'm taking up with you is that your definition of a Judge, doesn't seem to involve any actual judging .
C.1.a.1 involves judging how to apply law to questions of law
C.1.a.2 involves judging what is able to be argued
C.1.a.3 involves judging whether something meets a particular burden to probable cause
C.1.a.4 involves judging whether a particular item of evidence should be allowed.
Each of these can deeply affect the outcome of a case, but does not involve actually judging the facts of the case. Only rules of law.
So, who judges issues of fact? From the same link:
b. A jury decides issues of fact.
I wasn't using a dictionary, but the America Bar Association does seem to agree... see section C in the link
a tdo.html
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/volunteer/judge_wh
> is someone who has spent years in the courtroom as a lawyer
Yeah, since you know the judges have seen your exact same case come by then a thousand times won't have any problems listening carefully and absorbing every detail. Oh, wait, it was actually different? too bad
And, of course, none of us has ever had to look at a situation in our lives and determine which side to believe?
A judge is there to make sure the rules of law and court procedure are followed.
As I recall, it lets you burn a single play list 3 times. You want it burned more than three? just make another playlist and burn that one.
In addition to the above comments, take into account that we don't actually vote for president.
We vote for the electors that the state will send to vote for the president.
The election methods are just how each state has decided to allow its citizens to choose its electors.
They don't train only in the virtual world either I assume.
I'm guessing that when you mix real firearms training, you can throw in some virtual stuff to help work out strategic thinking, approach, etc.
But you still have to have the real training, or else nothing will stick.
Guesses, yes
>Once it's in my hands, it's MY device, not theirs. They can choose not to support that configuration, but they should not be able to prevent it.
They don't prevent it though.
They are choosing not to support a particular method of getting Real music onto your device.
There are other methods. You can buy Real's music, and get it on your iPod. It's a non-trivial exercise, but it is doable.
Maybe Real is preventing you from decoding their music?
Apple's not preventing you, they're just not making it easy.
Similarly... I buy a Ford. I later buy a Chevy engine. Should I be mad at Ford that it doesn't work? Or should I be mad at Chevy.
Neither is preventing me from trying. I own both pieces, and can use them how I like.
> install the OS on another machine
The way I see it at the moment is you are either going to be weird, stupid, or a pirate:
If you uninstall the software from your original machine, and put it on your other box, fine...
What are you going to put on your shiny new Mac? Linux or XP? If that's the case, why not just put those on your "other" machine. (This is "weird" to me)
If you aren't going to install anything on the new Mac, you just paid $x,000 for a single copy of MacOS X... good job. (This is "stupid" to me)
Or if you're using the OS on both, you are infringing the copyright by making pirated copies of the software.
> suing Real
I take that more as Apple trying to control who can make money off their devices.
That is different from controlling what I can put on the device. (even though it has similar effects)
>Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy.
Lots of directions to go here... which one are you headed?
I personally don't have a problem with "The thing just ain't guaranteed to work well on stuff that ain't ours, and we don't want those bad experiences to color people's view of our product"
I also don't have a problem with "Use our OS on our machine because we want to sell machines"... That's their right if they choose.
It's not arrogance... it's a choice of business models.
(Not to say Teh Steve isn't arrogant... just I don't think those are symptoms of that arrogance)
but only within certain boundaries. Our company standardizes on a language in each of our different projects. There is also a standardized interface between projects, so we don't have the multiple languages problem.
It gives us flexibility, but also leaves us room to react as needed.
This reminds me my languages class in college...
We had to do the same three projects in 4 different language styles (C, Lisp, Prolog, etc...)
From that we really learned how painful a language can be if it is being forced, and how wonderful they can be when used for what they were designed for.
> How is the ESRB's credibility damaged? Step into the mind of someone not on Slashdot... Joe Consumer: The ESRB says this game isn't an Adults Only game, and they govern this stuff, so this is safe for me to get. The News: [Coffee Mod] Joe Consumer: WTF? The ESRB lied! They are supposed to protect me. It doesn't matter whether the ESRB was lied to or not... Joe Consumer isn't going to do the research into such a trivial venture. (If he was, we wouldn't need ESRB at all anyway) Even more practically though, if you assume that the mod was left in so that it could be found and activated later, you could argue that the ESRB just doesn't have enough teeth to scare developers into revealing everything in their games. (This isn't an uncommon belief, so it can't just be ignored when factoring credibilty over a large group) No teeth = no credibility
I know I've had to write up some of the super-applicant-that-doesn't-exist type postings, and there was a less evil rational. (Though, it's not my choice to do it this way... )
There was a chance we'd actually get what we asked for, and for the folk that had most things, they were confident enough to apply. That weeded out some weaker applicants, and our environment really needed people with the attitude "I don't know that much about that, but I'm sure I can figure it out", and actually be able to do so.
> This "email worm" is more like a virus than a worm
That was kind of my point. These aren't always clearly separated enough that someone can say "C'mon! of course is THIS and not THAT"
It exhibits some wormish properties, and it exhibits some virusish properties. By strict definition of either, it is neither, but something different. (It doesn't spread entirely without intervention; nor does it infect an executable)
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_worm
A computer worm is a self-replicating computer program, similar to a computer virus. A virus attaches itself to, and becomes part of, another executable program; however, a worm is self-contained and does not need to be part of another program to propagate itself....The main difference between a computer virus and a worm is that a virus can not propagate by itself whereas worms can. A worm uses a network to send copies of itself to other systems and it does so without any intervention
This thing (from what little I read) emails itself around when it can... which would qualify it as a worm.
I'm a little fuzzy on the intervention part... the user has to to the initial activation, which could be intervention, but then again you have to do the initial activation with viruses, so I don't think that qualifies.
This thing doesn't seem to make itself part of another executable persé, so it wouldn't quite qualify as a virus.
Maybe I read my definitions wrong...
I remember playing a flight sim/attack game many years ago on my Quadra 650 w/ 3 screens. It was great. The main screen showed the front view. The left screen showed the left view, and I think you can work out what the right screen showed =-) Now... apply that to FPS (and give me the motion sensors like in Marathon), and I might get interested in that genre again.
>"Poverty" is not a valid excuse.
What about my pal here who was rather well off, and got wiped out by a lawsuit, then lost his job, and is most definitely in poverty now.
Should he get rid of his kid? Send the kid to some unaccountable foster organization? Or do the best he can with what he has?
You're talking about academic minutae,and not in terms of practicality.
> you don't respond to the thesis; namely that race is a "holistic" convention while homosexuality is not
Sure I did. I tried to show you that in practical terms of a social/political response there is no difference between the two. People get killed for being black. People get killed for being gay.
Whether the black people were killed because they had black skin, because they came from Africa (if they did in any fashion), because they share some sort of lineage, whatever, it doesn't matter. They got killed because they were black.
Whether a gay person is targetted because someone thought that they chose to be gay, someone's religion says that it is an abomination, or they just don't like the idea of gayness in the world, it doesn't matter. The gay person was targetted.
The folks that go around hassling gay people aren't writing doctoral theses on cultural anthropology.
>Race is not only something that you can change (just get a skin transplant!), it has been changing constantly over the course of history due to wavering classifications.
You don't help your argument by picking such outlandish examples. full skin transplant?
If gayness is part of a person, then they can change it... simply lobotmize the portions of the brain that affect sexual drive.
Back in the real world, it is simply not an option to change your race (or skin color, or whatever... yes, I'm being a little vague here on the definition. Again, we are talking about how people deal with the rest of the world. The definitions just don't matter. If it makes you happy, insert whatever possible physical means of identifying humans you wish)
Race (or perceived race, or racial class, or apparent lineage, whatever) is something that many humans use to differentiate each other for the porposes of discrimination and harrassment.
> "race" is an abstraction
Correct. It is an abstraction that is used differently by different groups, because not every person in the world is either equipped or energized enough to speak precisely on the topic. When blacks were getting lynched, did it matter that the psychos weren't using a scientific definition of race? No. The guy had black skin. Done/overwith.
Race is an abstraction that represents a state of being. (albeit a different meaning for some people)
>Therefore your comaparison of homosexuals to any race is illogical because "gay" is a state of being and "race" is an abstraction
Nope. An orange is food. I'm not comparing them in your narrow definitions. I'm comparing them in how they are used in the scenario we're talking about.
A brick is a building block. I can compare oranges and bricks in terms of their usefulness as weapons.
> "gay" is a state of being
Both blackness and gayness represent a state of being.
> controversy is not inherent to them as people
I never said it was inherent to them as people. My experience is quite the opposite. However, in groups of sufficient size (say, like the membership in WOW), you can guarantee that someone will disagree with what they perceive as the choice to be gay that they will act on it. (Note, I didn't say that I believe it's a choice... but many people do)
>It is impossible for there to be any "controversy" over "being gay", because they (gays) are not proposing any argument by simply existing
If you could create a community where there were only gay people (and those accepting gay people), and keep them completely separate from the group of people who hate gays, you might have a point.
But we live in a different world.
Recipe for controversy:
Take one group of people that is disliked for any reason.
Mix in a group of people that dislike them for that reason.
Simmer in an environment where their needs collide.
That recipe is currently boiling over in many places. Failure to plan for th
I don't think they're worried about that direction this time. That is, not that the LGBT folks will start harrassing, but that they will be targetted. Once targetted, they will either leave the service, take it, or fight back. If they leave, that's a bad thing for Blizzard... "I'm getting outta this place" If they stay and take it, Blizzard starts to get associated with homophobia... "Geez it's been like this forever, why don't they do something about it?" If they stay and fight back, you've got the WOW equivalent of flamewars just waiting to pop up which will cause all sort of other people to leave. "Get out fag... no, you get out neocon... the Bible says I must smite you... you can actually read?... etc" >It doesn't mean you *have* to But the offense taken by Blizzard's decision seems to indicate they believe they have some sort of right to have that group. And where one's rights are being denied, in some sense, you have to stand up to it.
Um, no.
y .
> no fundamentally inherent difference between a white person and a black person besides the pigmentation of their skin
Let see here, something that you can't change, that is currently the source of alot of controversy in most countries.
> A gay, however, is dealing with the consequneces of a very real biological trait
Something else that you can't change, that is currently the source of alot of controversy in most countries.
Also, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait
A trait may be any single feature or quantifiable measurement of an organism.
Are you saying that you can't quantifiably measure a person's color?
Or are you saying that a person is free to change their color?
>Therefore, any person that emphasizes "differences" between the two races is doing so in the context of cultural anthropology
You are inserting cultural anthropology into the discussion... just because that is where you are coming from doesn't mean that's where I'm coming from.
Anway, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_anthropolog
Specifically, how it refers to it being the holistic study of humanity.
Are you really trying to divorce gay issues from being part of humanity? How is skin color human, but sexual orientation not?
> To link the two examples reveals a fundamental misunderstanding/miseduacation about homosexuality, and that is to prescribe it some kind of "external" status to the subject that is based in "conception"
Where do you get that? In what I said, what could possibly have implied that I proscribed an element of choice to once orientation? I think you are reading into what is there, and what you are used to arguing against.
> Blizzard would have us believe that being gay is something inherently controversial
Seriously, what color is the sky on your world?
They implied nothing inherent. They only implied that it was controversial.
Obviously it is.
Clearly it will be for a long time to come. I certainly don't expect to see the world's overall opinion on orientation and identity to clear up in the length of time the WOW is going to be available online.