Revelation Space, Alastair Reynolds
Your use of the term "naive" suggests you think it's designed that way due to conspiracy.
SS7 is a protocol designed to do all these things because it's designed to manage the phone network. That's it's job. If it didn't do those things, it couldn't be used to route phone calls.
Does it have poor security? Yes in the 2014 world, but at the time it was developed virtually every phone company was a monopoly, and it was just assumed only a small handful of easily accountable giant telcos, usually only one in each nation, would ever use it directly. You might just as well criticize non-networked single-user circa-1977 CP/M for not having logins and user/group ownership of files.
Most of the people I've seen speaking out against GG seem to be the politcally correct thought police
Or... the loudest voices against GG have been those targetted by GG, who by and large are people seen by GG to be Feminists and widely misrepresented as a thought police rather than people sharing concerns they have about sexism.
You've just proven it's easy to convince yourself of something that's obviously not true simply by creating a narrative and tying some minor details into it.
Sarkeesian needs to screenshot a Twitter user who over the last few minutes is sending her death threats. She's getting notifications every few seconds from Twitter on her mobile device, presumably her phone. She knows how to make a screenshot on a computer, and it'll capture more tweets than the four or five you can typically see on a mobile phone, so she fires up a web browser, goes to the Twitter URL of the harasser who's still in the process of sending her death threats, hits Ctrl-PtSc, and then sends the screenshot somewhere.
Completely normal. Exactly what you'd expect someone to do (I know it's technically possible to take a screenshot on your phone, but (1) you won't get many tweets and (2) personally I don't actually know how to do it, if I were in the same situation I'd have to Google for the information.)
Your idiot evidence tries to make every element of this suspicious. They... *gasp* went to a PC they weren't logged into to make the screenshot. They *horror* didn't wait until the death threat stream had finished before making the screenshot, meaning some were coming in seconds before she took it! Because you've decided she must be making this up, you've had to invent a ridiculous narrative involving tablets and logging out of PCs that has Sarkeesian apparently unaware she can have two browsers on the PC that has a keyboard.
What's even more bizarre is you make these allegations while GamerGate simultaneously acknowledges that Sarkeesian does, actually, get death threats all the time. The GG "Anti-Harassment Patrol" even trumpeted it's "success" at finding a certain Brazillian journalist who is one source of anti-Sarkeesian death threats, and got terribly upset when Sarkeesian said "Yes, I know, I've already reported him" and spun it as "Sarkeesian refuses to report harasser we found!!!1!!"
GamerGate is about harassment. Stop trying to cover it up.
Android phone makers experimented with physical keyboards for a while, and lately seem to have decided to just issue the same bland iPhone-but-with-Android form factors and forget about being innovative in that area.
I hope BlackBerry stays relevent enough to undo that and get manufacturers looking at text input again. The current situation may suit many, but I see a 50/50 split between people who are happy with Swype-like text input, and people who really prefer the accuracy of physical push buttons. Me, I'm generally OK with the former, but want to have the latter to fall back on.
What's happening here is the standard (especially in GG) circle-j where GamerGaters theorize that something is a "false flag", then someone digs out some minor coincidence, KIA has a field day and declares that the case has been proven, and nobody there revisits the issue, usually genuinely shocked that anyone would disagree.
I'm _still_ arguing with people who think (or claim to think) that Nathan Grayson wrote anything at all as a result of his fling with "LW1" [the GamerGate term for their primary target, who isn't a journalist FWIW. The women herself has suffered enough harassment, so I'll subvert this term to actually avoid mentioning her by name respecting her wish she be kept out of it.] They read Grayson did, they've only listened to people who said he did, as far as they're concerned it's true, and no amount of "OK, point me at the articles he supposedly wrote" will change that. Given this is the original attempt to redefine GamerGate as an "ethics" campaign, something even this story has fallen for, that's a pretty bad thing.
1. Eron Gjoni initially tried to post his revenge-ex "tell all" about "LW1", to the forums of Something Awful. SA deleted it immediately and banned Gjoni.
2. Gjoni shops around, finally finding 4chan tolerates it long enough to stir up support from various anti-women trolls (well, it's 4chan, of course they're trolls.) Yadayadayada Adam Baldwin yadayadayadayada front page of New York Times, article about GamerGate's harassment and death threat campaign.
3. Goons (SA's term for forum members) discussing the trainwreck on Something Awful's forums notice the New York Times is covering a controversy that started at... Something Awful and post words to the effect of "What started here ended up on the NYT!"
So what happened then? Well, GamerGate developed a consensus, immediately, without any evidence whatsoever beyond forgetting, somehow, that SA was where Gjoni started trying to destroy "LW1", that Something Awful was behind all the death threats and was making them to make GamerGate look bad.
Because that totally makes sense. One, out of context, forum comment, with no actual quotes from SA members organizing this shadow campaign.
I mention this because it's one case where you specifically see the mindset. Something is "proven" because it gets repeated within KIA enough that it becomes an unquestioned fact. This is how GG holds on to its useful idiots long enough for them to make idiots of themselves.
If I'm wrong, so be it, but the chances of that aren't very likely.
We know that the gamergater position is based on lies, so it's most reasonable to assume that the lies are coming from that side; they've proven their willingness to lie, the whole thing is based on lies, it's lies all the way down.
After all that has happened it's almost disingenuous to point out that the review never happened, like a "white nationalist" pointing out minor arguments over how many thousands of Jews died in a particular camp.
Hmm, evasion, godwin... BINGO! Man, this thread has been pay dirt.
It's true that review never happened but a good deal of favoritism did.
Welcome to commercial journalism! Boy, have you ever picked the wrong place to make your stand.
the journalist does implicitly make a commitment towards their readers to perform their job with a certain level of professionalism and adherence to good journalistic practices
And that level is very, very low. Pretty much all sites inflate scores so that they will continue to receive review copies. As you say, whether genitals are involved is totally irrelevant. It's beyond hypocrisy to make this moment the stand against the lack of integrity in games journalism when there has never been any to begin with. Games journalism was born at a time when journalism in general had already become grossly commercial, and it set out to emulate it as closely as possible. The games magazines followed the format of the sports magazines, which were already about selling you shit. It would be shocking if it had not come out to be horribly corrupt.
The fact that sex was the tipping point proves just how pathetic the gamergaters are. If they could get laid, they'd be less jealous. They should spend less time hating, and more time hustling.
Its about corruption, about members of the gaming press having relations, both physical AND financial, with game developers they were promoting,
We already found out that this was a non-story, so why are you repeating it? zzzzzzz
When the news came out? THIRTEEN gaming sites issued THE EXACT SAME STORY about how they didn't need gamers and that gamers were "dead".
So you're offering as evidence your lack of understanding of how "news" works today? I guess you haven't heard of a wire service, either. Hint: It's how news is made.
Its REALLY simple folks,
Some people are making mountains out of molehills.
The FBI has also stated that some people named as hacking victims had in-fact hacked themselves. Didn't name names, but three names that come to mind are Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu.
They didn't name names, but you're completely willing to do so even though you don't know who did it, and it could have been someone on the other side completely. You are precisely the kind of person that you claim to be railing against.
Anti-gamergate is made up mainly of those rich middle class women who think that nerds who have been picked on their entire lives for being nerds are somehow opressing them.
Gamergate is made up mostly of kids who fling slurs that would make a sailor bluch around on XBox live
They wouldn't blush or bluch, whatever that is, they would just shake their heads and wonder how those children became orphans, because surely children with parents would never behave like them.
We already know several of the serious ones were false flag fakes.
Where's the evidence? We've all seen the evidence that the original basis for this whole flap was a bullshit lie, so we know that gamergate is founded on bullshit. But we haven't seen any evidence that any of the threats were false flag fakes. If you have any, provide it. If not, stop lying like the liar you are.
And for the record, I think it's just super you are such a good reader. Good for you!
It's too bad that you're so defensive about your lack of reading ability that you had to cry about it here.
Germany was spending far more on their military during that time than Britain was. If Britain and France had stepped in earlier, Germany would have been totally unprepared and the war would have ended quickly. Not to mention all of the horrors of the Holocaust that would have been prevented.
If Britain and France had managed to delay the war to "prepare" even more, say a few years, the Luftwaffe would have been dominated by jets, German ballistic missiles would have been longer range and more precise, and they might even have become a nuclear power. I really don't think this is the analogy you're looking for.