Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:An end to XBox? (Score 1) 327

by Daetrin (#47910575) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion
Despite Microsoft supposedly saying that won't be the case, i'm more concerned that this will mean the end of Minecraft on PS3 and PS4. Either directly or through neglect. Microsoft may be behind in this console generation but they're definitely not out yet, and a "the only place where you can play the latest version of Minecraft" tagline might sell 100,000 or more extra consoles.

Comment: Re:It's a bad sign (Score 1) 223

by demachina (#47886947) Attached to: U.S. Threatened Massive Fine To Force Yahoo To Release Data

When you are about to have an economic crash groups like Occupy and the Tea Party are an inevitability, whatever the names or politcal leaning may be. When you are about to have an economic crash the powers that be prepare to suppress revolt and domestic spying is job one. Militarizing the police is job two.

During the Great Depression Fascism was where economically desperate people turned as they are doing in Greece today.

Comment: Re:It's a bad sign (Score 5, Interesting) 223

by demachina (#47886151) Attached to: U.S. Threatened Massive Fine To Force Yahoo To Release Data

Note the date, 2008, not 2002. Approximately the time financial markets started crashing and the Occupy and Tea Party movements started building. Ya think the U.S. government was more worried about Islamic terrorists or ordinary Americans who would soon be fed up with massive corruption in D.C. and Wall Street. Were they trying to prevent another 9/11 or building the capacity to suppress the backlash when millions of ordinary people would soon be thrown out of their jobs and homes, while Wall Street would get massively bailed out, and return to business as usual, getting rich.

The U.S. did a spectacularly good job of crushing Occupy. Did they use domestic spying to do it.

War is when your government tells you who the enemy is, revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.

Comment: I reject your premise, and substitute my own. (Score 2) 280

by marphod (#47857093) Attached to: Is It Time To Split Linux Distros In Two?

Windows Server and Windows Desktop don't use the same OS? What definition of Operating System are you using here?

They have the same system libraries. They have the same kernel, albeit optimized and configured differently. They support the same APIs, run the same applications, use the same drivers, support the authentication engine, support the same UIs and shells, and use the same package delivery systems. There are differences, but I've yet to see any technical reason why you couldn't turn a Server edition into a Desktop release or vice versa.

As a counterpoint, the Ford Mondeo (4-door/5-door midsized vehicle) uses the same platform as a Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. They have the same frame, many of the same components, and otherwise take advantage of factory line construction and economies of scale. However, in this case, you could at least argue that they have different 'Operating Systems' -- they have some differences which are arguably just optimizations and tuning changes (handling characteristics, consoles, etc.) but others that are physical differences (Seats, load/capacity, etc.). You don't see Ford running out to split the Platform, though. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. There are more things in common at the core than are different, and they can make more products at a lower cost by sharing the core of the car platform. Ford has a dozen or so active car platforms, used by different models across their various brands; most other car makers do similarly.

The author is making one of several possible basic errors.
1) They don't really understand the definition of a Linux distribution (e.g. RHEL v CentOS v TurnKey v XUbuntu v Arch v etc.)
2) They don't really understand the differences between Windows Server and Windows Desktop
3) They don't really understand the definitions of the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, and the Linux OS
4) They don't really have a grasp of how software is made or how source code is shared
5) They weren't loved enough as a child and are desperately seeking attention.

This is like saying we need to create different compilers for AMD and Intel chips, as they have different architectures. It lacks understanding of the problem and understanding of how to address a solution.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1) 1134

by Daetrin (#47829971) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
Well even if we still haven't cleared up the mystery of the reason for the abbreviation, and despite the fact we clearly differ in opinion on the social issues involved, i thank and congratulate you for being the only person to respond to the original question in a reasonable manner with an attempt at an actual explanation (albeit with some confusion and fumbling around on both our parts before arriving at that point.)

Although it's a little sad that in this case an AC is setting the standard that so many of the pseudonym users ought to be aspiring to.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1) 1134

by Daetrin (#47828987) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
See my above response. It's not the name i disagree with. (I disagree with the assumptions behind it, and it seems a bit over the top, but it's a reasonably adequate name for its purposes.) It's the choice to consistently use the acronym instead that seems bizarre to me.

Saying "I don't like people who are enthusiastic about rape threats" doesn't sound paranoid. However if a bunch of people started going on about the "RTEs" and questioning what the RTEs were responsible for and if the RTEs had submitted this slashdot article, etc. Well, that would sound both stupid and a little paranoid.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1) 1134

by Daetrin (#47828885) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
Though i disagree with your interpretations, that's a perfectly adequate description of how the name might have come about, however it does nothing to explain the choice at acronym-ize it.

I have heard people complain about the War on Drugs many times (and i often agree with those criticisms.) However i can't ever recall anyone complaining about the "WoD". Certainly not for the first reference to the name in any case. In contrast i've seen "SJW" used dozens or scores of times, but can't recall "Social Justice Warrior" being used at all except on the rare occasion to explain what SJW actually stands for. (Notably in your explanation above you just assumed everyone already knew what SJW stood for when you explained the derivation.)

So to get back to the original comment that prompted the question in this thread, why is it:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and SJWs."

instead of:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and social justice warriors."?

or to use your own definition, why not just:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and militant misandric idiots."?

To me, #1 sounds stupid, #2 sounds a little hokey but okay, and #3 sounds perfectly reasonable (given the viewpoint of the person supposedly saying it.) I would certainly have gone with "militant misandric idiots" myself but would be boggled by the idea if anyone suggested abbreviating it to "MMI".

(I was originally going to suggest "militant misandric assholes" as an alternative, but then realized that if you tried to abbreviate that everyone would think you were talking about martial arts. Although perhaps choosing a term that can't be acronym-ized without confusion would be a good way to help prevent that from happening.)

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1) 1134

by Daetrin (#47828351) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
You're right, that was a mistake on my part and i apologize. What i should have said was "Question, why do you (generally speaking) feel the need to lump many or all of the people who disagree with you together into one group [...]"

The "or all" part is because it's possible that the set of people that are, in general, included in the group "professional victims" is actually a subset of the group "SJWs". If that were the case my original question would still be correct, however since i don't know if that is the case or not the rewording is justified. Carry on.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 2) 1134

by Daetrin (#47828045) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
Hmm,

#1: I never said that i've seen anyone on /. or any other forum say that rape or death threats are cool. I have seen people make such threats elsewhere, and perhaps it is a bit of jump to assume that the people who made those threats think that they are cool, but i think it's reasonable to believe so until proven otherwise. If you wish to debate the point however for the moment i will settle for "i mentally categorize everyone who makes rape or death threats into the same group."

#2: You specifically left out the bit immediately following the part you quoted, in which i clarified that i was not accusing anyone here "(and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW")".

#3: The part where you say that you do not take conversations on slashdot seriously (or at least that's my interpretation of your statement) and post here "only for fun": http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

So nice job troll, thanks for playing?

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1) 1134

by Daetrin (#47827859) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
No, i have no problem with that. If you wanted to take everyone you currently lump under the label "SJW" and call them "misandrists" instead i would disagree with your definition, but i wouldn't think it sounded stupid. It's not that you disagree with those people and have a less than complimentary name for them, it's that the name you (collectively) chose sounds like it came out of a paranoid conspiracy. Why construct stupid sounding acronyms to make it sound like there's some organized group out to get you when there are so many other perfectly normal words you could use?

It's interesting that so far there have been over a half-dozen replies in this thread and there's been a lot of dodging the question (sometimes with insults thrown in, free of charge) but no actual attempt to explain why "SJW" seemed like a good idea at the time.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1, Interesting) 1134

by Daetrin (#47827433) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
No, i got it all from three letters written by you, and the context of all the other people who have used those same three letters. I realize the definition is a bit redundant, but the group of people who use "SJW" to refer to people in a serious context just end up sounding well... to put it politely, "strange." My faith in humanity, battered though it may be, insists that they're not all just crazy and there must be some reason why they choose to do that, so what is it?

As for your knee, it sounds like you hurt it. I can say that in just six words because in this case i can say the first thing that comes to mind without sounding like i'm trying to insult you outright.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 2) 1134

by Daetrin (#47826973) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
Well as i said, my initial presumption would be that people who always resort to blaming things on groups with three letter acronym names are just crazy. However i am trying not to fall prey to the simple "well those people are just crazy" impulse, so i'm trying to understand instead. Why do you feel that's appropriate? Do you not realize it sounds... strange to people who aren't versed in your sub-culture? Or do you not care? Do you believe you're trying to educate the rest of us about what "those people" are really like?

Even though i do mentally categorize everyone who thinks rape and death threats are cool into the same group (and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW") i don't feel the need to give them a name any more specific than "misogynist assholes." I don't understand the appeal of coming up with some fancy name with a three letter acronym and bandying it about all over the place. Honestly i'd think that anyone who felt compelled to do so would sound... well, a little crazy. So what's the appeal? (I'd think the people who keep going on about "MRA"s are crazy, except i had the impression the "MRA"s gave that name/acronym to themselves, which again, i don't understand the appeal.)

Comment: Why "SJW"? (Score 4, Insightful) 1134

by Daetrin (#47826579) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture
Question, why do you (generally speaking) feel the need to lump all the people who disagree with you together into one group, give that group a sarcastic name, and then abbreviate that name into an acronym which you can then use as a accusatory label whenever the subject comes up for discussion?

It sounds like the kind of thing my old paranoid-schizophrenic girlfriend would do when talking about "them", but i presume you are not mentally ill, so there must be some other reason for it. Is it some kind of bonding thing between people who feel threatened by others? Or do you believe that by creating the appearance of some kind of organized opposition that you will sway "neutral" parties toward your side? It just sounds dumb to me, but maybe i'm not the intended audience?

Comment: Re:California Betrayed (Score 4, Informative) 157

by Daetrin (#47821435) Attached to: Reno Selected For Tesla Motors Battery Factory
Well if California was actually betrayed by anyone, the first blame would have to fall at the feet of the state legislature, which failed to vote on the incentive package before the latest session ended. When the California governor promised Tesla the incentives the company responded with interest, and a few days after those incentives disappeared in puff of legislative smoke Tesla announced their decision to go with Nevada.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

When the topic first came up on Slashdot a number of people seemed to think offering such incentives was a bad idea. Maybe the California legislature agreed with that reasoning, but if they've made any statements about why they did what they did i haven't heard about it.

What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

Working...