Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Depends on your data (Score 1) 170

Even Capacity is going to go this year, with expected 16 TB SSD drives coming to market. The only thing Spinning drives have at this point is Price. And if price is all you care about, then go Cheap! For everything else, go SSD>

You really think the overall media market is ready to pay 4x the price for no additional benefit? It's one thing to pay a 10% premium for something slightly better, it's quite another to pay a 400% premium for a difference you won't notice.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 230

I've played a lot of video games over the centuries. I don't ever recall any idealized versions of men or women.

For a two hundred year old you sure are tech-savy :-). Regardless of pacman and tetris, games like the batman series, the far cry series, the CoD series, the doom series, the just cause series, the saints row series... and many more... all present a buffed-up man as the idealised perfect soldier, capable of waging and winning a one-man war against (in some instances) entire countries. If you think that that is not unrealistic and idealised then you sure know some hardcore men.

For my part, all those men appear to me to be unrealistically perfect, which is why I am not surprised when the women presented in videogames are also unrealistically perfect. See Diablo II for examples of both in the same game.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 1) 230

To be clear, she isn't saying that the way men are presented is great either. Lying by omission - two parties are presented unrealistically. She complains that only one party is presented unrealistically giving the impression that it is prejudice, bias or bigotry responsible. The fact that the other party is presented just as unrealistically breaks her argument down completely.

She is just pointing out that there is a problem specific to female characters, who are designed to provide titillation to a presumed straight male audience.

You see it as "designed to provide titillation to a presumed male audience", most people see it as "idealised version of people, men and women". See any Hollywood movies lately? Notice how the men and women presented are nothing like real people? You seriously think that all those Hollywood leading men aren't designed to provide titillation to female audiences?

There's a whole genre of movies frequently called chick-flicks that are designed primarily to indulge female fantasies. Hell, there's even series devoted to the very same thing (see cougar town). So why is it a problem when a videogame indulges male fantasies. Are only females allowed to have fantasies?

Comment Re:Management structure and meritocracy (Score 1) 267

So it's a discussion about what to do if men show up at a private meeting for female programmers and start being disruptive.

No, it isn't about disruptive men. From the link over here:
The presence of men at meetups will likely make some of our attendees not want to come back. Even if they aren't displaying any outright problematic behaviors.

Comment Re:Subservient? (Score 1) 488

I didn't say it promotes any particular behaviour, I said it normalizes it.

So did Thompson - from this link over here:
It's entirely possible that shooter video games helped desensitize Lanza to violence. "

If this argument didn't work for Thompson, what makes you think it would work for you? It's the exact same argument - $FOO desensitizes people to $BAR - just replace $FOO and $BAR with whatever you've got in $IDEOLOGY argument.

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 488

Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?"

That is the only issue you can see. I can only repeat myself so many times, read my posts above.

It's the only issue that is displayed - it doesn't matter how much flowery language you dress it up in or how verbose your explanation of your reasoning for wanting to limit other peoples enjoyment with their property, it still comes down to that single question.

You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.

That would be 'society in general'. We have these things called 'social norms'. When I talk about deviant behavior, I mean behavior that deviates from those norms.

Yeah, and at one point we, as society, determined that homosexuality was deviant behaviour. Turns out all it was was puritanical types poking their noses into other peoples bedrooms. You're doing the same thing - "Everyone agrees that this sexual behaviour, with only consenting adults, is deviant."

[...] they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine?

The objection people are having here is to Cortana's response to abusive language. That is, they want the program to respond to their abusive comments in a particular way that is not the same as the "professional personal assistant" way in which the program is designed to respond.

See my earlier reply to someone else upthread - you gets to draw the line between "serious" and "non-serious' questions. You? Me?

That is, they want the program to indulge them in their deviant fantasies.

And this is wrong how? It doesn't affect you in the least if the product answers every question as if it were a serious question. It does affect other people if the product decides that some questions aren't worth answering.

They believe Microsoft should have accommodated their particular fetish.

How you've turned that in to the belief that I want to limit how someone sexually interacts with a machine is a mystery. By all means, molest your toaster and ask the coffee machine if it wants to join in on the action. I couldn't care less. For your neighbor's sake, however, I will request that you draw the shades ahead of time.

What I see as the actual problem, is the attempt to normalize abusive behavior.

It's not abuse if there is no one involved in the receipt of such expression. "Abusive behaviour" requires a recipient - in this case there is none.

I asked you some questions earlier that should help you to understand the issues. I would encourage you to answer them.

Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms.

Why do you conflate abuse and sexuality? While it's true that some abuse can be sexual abuse, not all abuse is sexual. Neither is all sexual behavior abusive. You may want to sort that out.

Yeah, but in this case they have been conflated - As I understand it FTA, asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 2) 230

She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters.

You have a problem with a work of fiction presenting an idealised version of a woman? Those very same games present idealised versions of men as well - why is one a problem but not the other?

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 488

No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom.

No, you were talking about that. I still have no idea why.

Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?". You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.

I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise

Even though the first thing I did was explicitly deny that absurd accusation?

You deny that you want to enter peoples bedrooms, but at the same time advocate that they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine? Those are mutually exclusive options - you can't argue for limiting consenting adults sexual behaviours while at the same time argue that other peoples sexual behaviours are no business of yours.

Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms. If you really feel that what people do in their bedrooms is their own business you wouldn't be proposing to limit their private sexual expressions.

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 488

Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed?

We're talking about the normalization of deviant behavior.

No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom. I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise, hence I referred to it as "The Puritanical Argument".

It doesn't matter how you paint it - you are arguing that what consenting adults do in their bedroom must be regulated for the good of society - now where have we seen this argument before, eh?

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 488

? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?

If two consenting adults want to engage in some legal act with one another, I couldn't care less. Abuse, however, isn't a consensual act, and many forms of abuse are, obviously, not legal.

Totally irrelevant - all of your interactions with cortana are consenusal. Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed? We've seen this argument before and it's not a good one - a person masturbating to their software in the privacy of their bedroom doesn't require consent from anyone but themselves.

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 0) 488

I'm deeply curious, however, as to why so many people here are upset that they can't pretend to verbally abuse women and have the virtual object of their ridicule react as though it had been dominated or otherwise became a submissive and accepting of that kind of abuse. This is obviously a fantasy they have, which is disturbing.

Ah, the puritanical argument - haven't seen that one in a while - why does it bother you what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?

Comment Re:Subservient? (Score 1) 488

They mean sexually subservient. Obviously it will do what you ask it to most of the time, but it won't assist with your sexual fantasies or simply put up with abuse.

This is a good thing. We shouldn't create AI that normalises abusive relationships, as it would be irresponsible.

You know when I previously warned you that your extremist views are abhorrent to the middle majority of the population? Yeah, well, this is one of those views. No one created an AI that normalised abusive relationships. We've seen your views before - $X software promotes $Y behaviour.

Where have we seen it? Let's ask Jack Thompson...$X software promotes $Y behaviour is abhorrent, moreso since you don't have any evidence for this partilcuar claim either.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 3, Insightful) 459

So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda.

Well, we currently do it for men. Do you have any good arguments for why forcing men into years of servitude is okay but forcing women into years of servitude is not? If it is okay to force $GENDER into servitude for years, why does it stop being okay when the gender changes?

Slashdot Top Deals

Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel

Working...