hey guys

geeks have to grill different

because they're geeks and have to be different and stuff

yeah, that makes sense.

1. That doesn't make any sense. By that definition, all major game studios would be independent.

2. Mojang is not a small time player anymore.

3. "Indie" definitely does indeed refer to small time self-owned business encompassing a very small group of people (I usually don't even use the word "studio" unless they actually have a physical studio). There is no other sensical definition.

4. I've been a part of an indie development shops. Mojang is not an indie development shop.

I disagree with your tone. I particularly (and universally) despise the statement "who the hell cares?" because it contains an arrogant implication that you speak for everybody.

That being said, I agree with the sentiment that Slashdot ignores good indie games, but my agreement is not for the reasons you think.

You might ask "but what about Mojang"? Mojang is a multi-million dollar game studio that has shown it can tangle with the big boys. Its flagship product has sold millions of copies. It sells products across multiple platforms. It's been the star of a cover article in every major game magazine. It's not "indie" by any stretch of the imagination.

Slashdot ignores nearly ALL indie game developers, with the exception of iphone app developers.

Thank you for recommending "Town", I'll check it out.

Yes. It was ONE of the subreddits. That was definitely a worthy ban. And there were a couple more good bans as well. But a large number of those subreddits were of fully clothed girls, many over the age of 18. One or two of the those subreddits were for girls exclusively over the age of 18. They just nuked a whole series of subreddits without verifying that all of them were a problem, presumably because SomethingAwful spooked them.

Additionally, US. vs. Knox defined Child Porn as any medium depicting sexual behavior in a child. A 16 year old girl in a bathing suit is not necessary depicting sexual behavior. It may be externally sexualized, as in, observers masturbate to it, but is that enough to call it porn? People masturbate to normal pictures of feet. Are we to define pornography on the basis of who gets off to it, as opposed to the original intent? And is that enough to ban a subreddit full of 16+ year olds who are clothed, or at most, dressed in bathing suits?

I'm certainly not a fan of sexually objectifying children, but it seems to me that there are still some hard issues here that haven't been addressed.

I'm going to have to dispute this.

Let me establish a hint of credibility. I was the top-voted comment on the Reddit post announcing the ban of /r/jailbait. In that comment, I supported the ban decision. However, I think this situation is a bit different.

First of all, this set of bans wasn't handled well. It wasn't very accurate. Just a blanket ban based on the Something Awful list, without regard for the actual content or intent of the subreddit. They just didn't thoroughly verify the SA list.

Second of all, I dispute the premise that all of what was banned was Child Porn. According to the United States v. Knox decision, sexual behavior in photos can be construed as CP, in addition to images involving actual sex or nudity. With this expanded and legally accurate definition in mind, I went to google cache/imgur and checked out several subreddits on the ban list (those not blocked by the 18+ check in the cache, that is). There were lots of 15-19 year olds in bathing suits, but several subreddits failed to reveal any displays of sexual behavior. In fact, some subreddits weren't even of minors. Some of it was, and the bans in those cases were good. But very clearly not all of this was CP.

This also begs the question, "Is it pornography because someone masturbates to it? Or does the intent of the photo matter?" That wasn't clearly defined or discussed either.

Third, see this comment on SA's motivations. They weren't as pure as you would seem to portray them. We're just taking the accuracy and holiness of the Goons' crusade for granted here. That's a bit of a problem.

I was a big proponent of the ban of /r/jailbait after it became a CP hub. But I really don't think this current set of blanket bans was handled well. Bans must be accurate and well-executed, not badly executed and then bragged about by the admins afterward.

I don't know what your point is. If someone tells me that 2+2=5, virtually no one else will be stupid enough to think that 2 added to 2 actually equals 5. However, the fact that no one was fooled does not mean we can't criticize the person for being wrong, or in this case, for fueling incorrect perceptions that others may have.

I understand, but my point is that the "when most people talk about Linux" argument is purely based on an inaccurate popular perception. Any system that relies on the services of the Linux kernel is a Linux system. To talk about Android and Linux as if they are separate entities is just as wrong as if I used the terms "Ubuntu" and "Linux" distinctly when talking about the same issue. If the userspace framework is the critical difference, then talk about that! Don't generically refer to the underlying kernel as if it represents an accurate common theme of unsuccessful tablet OSs, because that's clearly not the case.

Several posts here talk about how "Linux" is somehow bad or unsatisfactory on tablets, then go on to talk about how Android somehow satisfactory. That makes no sense. Android is Linux. If you think a specific variety of Linux is bad, then say so. Stop making these overgeneralizations about "Linux" when you're clearly wrong.

I think you seem to be forgetting that Android is Linux. No, it's not desktop Linux (I agree that desktop Linux is not suited to tablets), but stop making generalizations about "Linux" being a failure. Android (and even WebOS, depending on who you talk to) is clear evidence that Linux on tablets is not a bad idea.

That's not what neoliberalism is. Neoliberalism is an economic term, whereas neoconservative is a foreign policy term. Many have tried to redefine both of those terms, but their actual original meaning remains.