Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Gamers aren't special (Score 1) 701

by N1AK (#47514211) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry
Or just ban the cunts quickly when they are reported for abuse. It always amazed me years ago when xbox live was invariably filled by racist/sexist/abusive chumps who the reporting system clearly wasn't enforced. Every time a girls voice (or a possibly female gamertag) was heard in a game there'd be 1+ twat making sexual remarks, telling them to get back in the kitchen incessently. People are paying MS decent money for live and MS ignoring that crap was basically a big fuck you to anyone female, asian, black or whatever who wanted to game online without constant abuse.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 1) 701

by N1AK (#47514173) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry
Or vanish back to the imagination that created. The simplest way for 9/10 men who don't think there's an issue to get a better understanding of the difference in harassment between genders is to think about how much abuse (if any) they get for being male, then ask a female friend to tell them about examples of harrasment they have been subjected to and the effect.

Anecdotals have plenty of flaws but with something as inherently personal as sexual harrasment it's a lot easier to appreciate the importance if you realise the universality of it and the impact on a real person.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 3, Insightful) 701

by N1AK (#47514155) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

If I write a gaming opinion piece called "Mens world: why game devs should ignore all whining women and focus on their main demographic" I'd also get a lot of angry mail and spiteful messages.

And Martin Luther King got a whole lot of shit for highlighting the plight of black people; it doesn't mean he didn't have a point or that threatening to sexually assault or kill him should be brushed off as the inevitable consequence of his actions.

I've seen enough sexist, aggressive or verbal, abuse of women by men which had nothing to do with the woman being a 'feminist' (like that could justify it regardless) to appreciate that sexism is an real issue that needs addressing. Obviously not everything that every man does is sexist, but when women have to put up with orders of magnitude more harrassment just because they're female, us men need to put aside our desire to defend our own reputation and realise that this shit has to stop.

Comment: Re:Subject bait (Score 1) 368

by N1AK (#47505933) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

You should know that Israelis mourn Gazan casualties as well. We hate the Hamas, but certainly not the people of Gaza.

Many Israelis don't even if you do, and you certainly don't respond to suffering on both sides in the same way. As a Brit I know the rocket attacks the Israelis are coming under are terrible compared to my cosey little existence, but they're almost comical compared to the suffering of the Palestinians: Hundreds of dead, thousands of injured, hundreds of thousands forced to flee their homes and over a million without basic utilities, struggling to find food and water.

People wonder why so many Palestinians support Hamas when they 'bring these attacks upon the Palestinian people' but they're missing the point. The existence of the French resistance during WW2 led to thousands of the French suffering in response, but they considered the resistance as the only way to fight back against an oppressor. In Palestine the Israelies are seen as that oppressor, and even if the resistance is largely ineffective and leads to reprisals, they will be supported because people support those they see as fighting for them against an oppressor.

Israelis constantly make the point that Hamas targets civilians when they don't. Firstly, given the vastly larger number of Palestinian civilians killed it's a pretty arbitrary point and secondly Israel can effectively strike at Palestinian military organisations with minimal risk, how exactly do you suggest that Hamas fights a conventional war agains the IDF? Lastly, look back at the post WW2 period and the founding of Israel and the acts of terrorism, including many targetting civilians, by Jews at the time. Back when your country didn't have overwhelming military power your ancestors were perfectly happy to use terrorism to achieve its goals; which makes this protest agains the same methods 60 years later look more than a little hypocritical.

Comment: Re: user error (Score 1) 706

by N1AK (#47473617) Attached to: People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he didn't disprove him own point.

I said he contradicted his own data source. Which he clearly, and emphatically did. There are certainly arguments that could be made for why Americans need bigger cars for safety, and if they could be backed up with evidence I'd welcome them? I could come up with a dozen reasons why driving in Europe could be more dangerous than the US but without any evidence it's just speculation, which is all your musing on road complexity is unless there's any evidence to support it.

For American cars to be safer than European cars you'd need to demonstrate that driving on the roads in America is roughly 3 times as likely to lead to a fatality in equivalent vehicles to fit with the source he used.

Comment: Re:ugh (Score 1) 552

by N1AK (#47457255) Attached to: The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

I believe in Climate change, but at the same time, I can completely understand the confusion on the part of the general public. Climate change has no direct evidence and there never will be.

Produce the statistics as a whole, explain them and let the opponents try to fight THAT.

This article isn't about a single observable proof of climate change so I don't get what relevance your rant has. In fact, given that the story is allegedly about climate change deniers mis-using data that shows climate change as 'evidence' there isn't climate change it's pretty fucking obvious that they are able to fight data based arguments.

Comment: Re: user error (Score 5, Informative) 706

by N1AK (#47455737) Attached to: People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

Visit List of countries by traffic-related death rate [] and sort by "Road fatalities per 100 000 motor vehicles"... The EU Econobox is a deathtrap by American standards.

I'm not sure how you've managed to so completely contradict your own data source. America 11.6 Road fatalities per 100 000 motor vehicles and the list of countries you've given is basically the best countries. For example, the UK's figure is 3.5 (less than 1/3rd the death rate in america). Even using the more useful deaths per km travelled figures the US has almost twice the fatality rate of the UK with our 'small EU deathtraps'.

Comment: Re:"Emergency" laws. (Score 2) 147

by N1AK (#47424283) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

This law is actually only enacted because their previous law got invalidated by the EU, and they really really want to still be able to do this!

I disagree with these rules on retention, but the false comments by others who share that view are blurring an important debate. The law that got invalidated by the European court was an EU law not a UK law, so no this isn't because their law was invalidated. There's been a fuss made about this bill being rushed through as though it to hide something; however the bill has come about very quickly compared to most and given the desire of the government to get cross-bench support the timing isn't overly suspicious. They've also added a very short which means which requires a new bill be passed in 2 years which gives time for proper debate.

I'll repeat my assertion that I don't want ISPs to be recording this information for all customers; however making the story about how the bill is being passed (actually very reasonably for the circumstances) distracts from the questioning of whether any such bill should exist at all and isn't helpful.

Comment: Re:Not new (Score 1) 253

by N1AK (#47413785) Attached to: US Tech Firms Recruiting High Schoolers (And Younger)

For one thing, if someone's got a solid work ethic, likes to buckle down and get the job done, takes pride in their work, then how does that coexist with the attitude that college isn't worth the effort? If they think college is stupid, does that mean they secretly think their current job is stupid?

Pretty naive logic. Do you really want to hire someone who stuck at a degree even though they strongly believed it was a unproductive use of their time because of the fear of failure, sheer pigheadiness or irrational risk avoidance? Does that mean they won't challenge poor decisions or provide valueable insights in your company?

I've got a degree and I'm glad I went to university; which doesn't stop me from knowing that judging someone for dropping out without further information is a dumb idea.

Comment: Re:The Amazon AppStore Auto-consent (Score 1) 137

by N1AK (#47392053) Attached to: Amazon Fighting FTC Over In-App Purchases Fine

So asking for a refund for in-app purchases made by a minor should be legal, they are simply voiding their purchase.

There's no reason to interpret voiding a contract as requiring that a payment be returned. There would also be issues around the fact the child has no contract with the credit card provider, and that the person who does will have a contract with the credit card provider which they almost certainly broke by allowing someone else to use it.

None of the above says in-app purchases are right. I just wanted to clarify that the rules regarding children and contracts probably don't impact in the way you suggest.

Comment: Re:It's not just the refund (Score 1) 137

by N1AK (#47392045) Attached to: Amazon Fighting FTC Over In-App Purchases Fine

Does someone who is only 8 understand that when they are spending what are now "Smurfberries" are actually real money?

Why would you give someone who is 8 a device on which they have all the details they need to spend real money? Also, when they buy in game currency that screen will explicitly say how much real money you're spending. It's misleading to pretend that an 8 year old wouldn't be aware they were spending real money.

Comment: Re:It's not just the refund (Score 1) 137

by N1AK (#47392039) Attached to: Amazon Fighting FTC Over In-App Purchases Fine

The same is true of things like pay-per-view - if some cable company had a big BUY button on the remote control that if you pushed it twice automatically tuned to a PPV station and bought the first thing on the list without an option for a PIN, then you'd see outrage over that as well.

If that was clearly explained functionality then I expect you'd find very quick;y that no one would use that company. If it wasn't defined functionality or was a bug, then you'd see people suing the company for the error. You see outrage from people who order dishes with warnings about hot, then can't eat them and expect refunds; the presence of outrage isn't proof of the presence of something to reasonable to be outraged about.

The only real question to me is whether Amazon have done anything to encourages users to feel safe letting kids use their tablets, and if so has it been secured to a reasonable extent. It sounds like there is some confusing behaviour around unlocking in-app purchases when doing other things, which could mean they fail that test.

Comment: Re:It's Intended (Score 1) 137

by N1AK (#47392013) Attached to: Amazon Fighting FTC Over In-App Purchases Fine

Selling an 'expansion pack' containing additional content while users are not playing the game should also be legal, as long as the expansion pack is announced in advance and not prompted for purchase in the game, or given a 'sample' of the expansion.

Why? People can show me adverts for a game I don't own already to make me want to buy it. What is so magically different about showing me an advert in the game for something else that it needs laws creating to stop it?

2.) Selling ability to access something shown or advertised in game, for example as a "locked" mission, "premium" campaign, or "bonus option", should be illegal.

If I go into a bar and order a beer does the bar owner have to hide all the more expensive beers, food etc so that I can't be tempted with it. Should the waitress be locked up if she asks if I'd like another? "on a computer" or "in a game" doesn't make something an entirely new concept. Upselling, expansions, try before buying etc have existed for decades and we don't need a dozen new laws to make doing it in computer games.

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll