I like Blomkamp a lot, but he hasn't shown any flexibility as yet. His movies, his shorts, and his commercials all have the same sort of style - it's a good style, it's refreshing, but it isn't Star Wars. According to Wikipedia the last movies Lasseter directed were Cars / Cars 2, and I don't think del Toro is really any better than Abrams.

Would Cameron have done it? I get the impression no. Whedon might have been very good, but Abrams wasn't a terrible choice for this. I am cautiously optimistic.

I grant that I wouldn't want endless stories about this sort of thing, but Walter Lewin is a special case. He's possibly the most celebrated (relatively) current physics lecturer there is - if you have any interest at all you should seek out some of the videos of his lectures, they are terrific. And that's reasonably nerdy. It's also MOOC (massive open online course) related, and that's a new thing and internet-centric.

I appreciate this update to the previous story about his removal, the lack of any sort of real explanation left me with a rather bitter taste in my mouth. It still... the new story says that all of the evidence of his transgression came from his accuser, which... well. It would have been nice if they had thrown in a line about confirming the chat logs with Facebook, and an additional something about confirming that it was indeed him who said / sent these things and not just someone who had access to his account (when I worked at a distance learning program, I had access to all of the faculties' account pages - this is what the article says he used as proof of his identity to the student). But I'm able to make the assumption that the people investigating this are not completely incompetent. I had come away from the previous story unclear on just how this harassment had taken place, so the new story gives me a bit of satisfaction in that this was indeed unacceptable behavior.

This? That was the fist link for me. Man, I shudder to think that even half the stories about her might be true.

Bleh. I can't even tell if you're joking, all that my searches come up with is Gamergate stuff. There are plenty of pictures labeled Zoe Quinn, but most of them don't even look vaguely like her and the ones that do could easily have been faked.

If that's actually true then I deserve the downmods, but you certainly don't. One of us has been unjustly modded here, I don't know which.

Her name is Zoe Quinn. It's not a pseudonym, that's her actual name - she doesn't need to be doxxed. She's not a "victim" of doxxing, we already know who she is. Frikkin' hell, did someone hack her RAMs too? Was her CPU phreaked by 1337 script kiddies?

There was a headline the other day about saying that Sony had been doxxed.

Given what they're charging for components, $100 for 4 GB RAM, $150 for a 250 GB SSD (plus the cost of the HD that it replaces), I have trouble giving them that kind of a pass. I bought a 240 GB SSD just a few weeks ago for $80.

I'll grant that it's pretty unreasonable to expect some little independent group to get by on the 5% profit margins that Dell does, but that isn't what we're talking about here: these are Apple prices. This feels exploitative.

X-Rebirth has 4 GB as its min reqs, and 8 GB as recommended. What do you gain from doubling the recommended reqs? (or quadruping them in the case of the laptop) Extra RAM isn't going to help you if the game doesn't have a mechanism to take advantage of it.

Also, what kind of netbook has a dedicated GPU?

All right, fair enough. I don't think this personality trait is really so unusual though, different people just express it different ways.

What is it that you're doing on a laptop which requires so much RAM? Certainly there are some workloads like that, but none that I can think of which would justify shoving 16 GB into a mass-market netbook.

The key here is the anonymity, none of the other junk. What you seem to be suggesting is a board with mostly non-anonymous members, but one anonymous one who harasses the known ones using personal information. Is that accurate? If they were all anonymous then this would be annoying, but not really a problem (despite being small and local). If none were anonymous then, according to you, it wouldn't be a problem, though I think I'd disagree there. I've known plenty of non-anonymous people who have made life miserable for the people around them.

This is beside the point though. What I was asking before was: What do you mean by "opposed and dealt with"? The only options that I see are either stripping anonymity or ensuring anonymity (plus, perhaps, some manner of user moderation to address bad comments). These are obvious answers though, just typical board admin stuff, tantamount to shrugging your shoulders and saying "oh well." By your tone you seem to be pushing for something more drastic, so I'm asking what that might be.

Okay, so what is good enough then? You've brought up a worst-case scenario, but one that isn't unheard of. It's a fair point, but unless there's some way to address this then saying "oh well" and shrugging your shoulders is as much as you can do.

The point I'm making is that she was following the rules. You can punish her and say, "This is about what you did and not about who you did it to." the whole time you do it, and maybe even believe it as you say that, but the fact is that you have failed to punish her and other prosecutors like her for many years as they have done the same thing to other people. It's clear in that case, from your actions, that your words are untrue.

Oh for the sake of Pete... I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but then my hand brushed the back button. I'm not going to try to write it again, short answer: Yes, I see it differently. I think the difference is that because what she was doing is so commonplace, other prosecutors are not going to see her as a "bad prosecutor" because they don't see themselves as bad. They're going to see people making an example out of her the same way that she tried to make an example out of Aaron and ask themselves, privately, what she did wrong. And since what she actually did was business as usual, what she did can't be the answer. The answer has to be who she targeted. In other words the message that you send is that it's okay to keep doing this as long it isn't to people who are wealthy and famous and well-connected.

Now pretend that I said that longer and more convincingly.

It's scapegoating in that it's pinning the problem onto a single person, who ultimately isn't responsible for a systematic issue. This is not a case of crooked individual undermining a fair and just system - what she did was commonplace, it just doesn't usually happen to someone with whom you've heard of and sympathize with. Saying, "Let's get her!" and then going home satisfied that you've beaten the bad guy is exactly how this sort of thing is allowed to continue.

Note: I am not defending her any more than I'd defend the gangster used as a classical scapegoat. Neither of their hands are clean. Does she deserve to be fired? I don't know, maybe, but it wouldn't actually do anything.