Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Do you have any idea how you all sound? (Score 1) 459

What, I think, is telling is not that they're just making these somewhat dumb comments, it's how effing angry they are, as if Cortana not putting up with simulated harassment is in some way taking something valuable away from them.

Ever since, well, just before this GG nonsense started, Slashdot's readership has been really circling the toilet. I wonder how these people have jobs given their anger issues with women.

Comment Re:hyperloop without the hyper or loop (Score 1) 168

Kinda true, kinda not. The idea was to replace CAHSR, but CAHSR is itself billed as a replacement for flying.

Personally I think the Hyperloop proposal is done in bad faith - the system Musk proposed was supposedly substantially cheaper, but only served two of the four cities joined by CAHSR, was something in the region of a hundred miles away from those two cities, couldn't carry anything like the same number of passengers, and Musk hand waved quite a bit about costs (did he really think the CAHSR people hadn't considered viaducts? And in what world does a viaduct - even for a single pipe stuck up on stilts - cost only a quarter of a million dollars a mile?) suggesting it would probably cost several times the amount Musk proposed.

And, I'll be honest, I think travel in those things will be a nightmare. But I'd expect nothing less from anyone in the car industry - these are people who have never "got" public transportation, largely because they love driving so much they can't imagine anyone else wouldn't.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 292

If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.

Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.

Comment Re:Surprise (Score 1) 219

It's actually kinda awkward to draw any conclusions from that as adjusting for other factors isn't trivial.

Imagine, for a second, if A causes B, but only when combined with C, D or E. (And C, D, and E don't cause anything on their own, only when combined with A)

A is going to look like a cause of B, but C, D, or E will be relatively difficult to correlate with B, especially if they're common. That may result in people assuming that, say, C had nothing to do with B simply because A was present.

I know, I know, basic stats and all of that, and I doubt video games are causing (much) harm (nothing's completely harmless ;-)) but I'd be more comfortable with more studies.

Comment Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians (Score 2) 219

For the most part I'd agree with this, but you might be underplaying her skepticism a little by saying she isn't arguing "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life".

She certainly is arguing that poor representations of women in games contributes to general atmosphere that ends up resulting in tox... uh, I better avoid academic jargon that's widely (deliberately?) misunderstood here.. behaviors by many that are harmful to women. She also points out I believe that such tropes tend to put off many women, who would otherwise be much more confortable dropping $60 on your latest blockbuster, but feel excluded from the non-casual space as a result.

But Sarkeesian is also clear that a few sexist tropes in games are not solely responsible for harm done to women, that they don't exist in a vaccuum, and that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game and find a few tropes in it a little dubious.

The biggest point I'd make to people who think, after being told by numerous YouTube "personalities" that Sarkeesian is an advocate of censorship, is that Sarkeesian's criticisms are constructive criticisms. She's not demanding bans or boycotts, she's saying "Hey, game developers, here's a few things you might want to avoid", and telling players "Listen, I know you love this game, just be aware of these issues when you play it."

(Game developers actually love her videos in my experience, which tells you all you need to know.)

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where nuanced comments that are neither "BAN THIS!" nor "WE WANT MORE OF THIS!!" are understood. Most people seem to think that every argument has two sides, no more, no less.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 292

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 292

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Comment Re:Social Justice Twitter (Score -1) 99

Typical SJWNPAT (my acronym for SJW Normal Person Anti-Terrorist), all Twitter is doing is censoring people for criticizing Ethics in Western society. Sure, some people have claimed in ISIL's name to have murdered a few people here and there, but first of all THOSE people they supposedly "murdered" are professional victims and their claims of being murdered are highly suspect no matter how many videos we produced of them being beheaded and threads on /r/WesternSocietyInAction you can point at where every laughed at the Beta Cuck Infidels. And secondly, just because they said they were ISIS doesn't mean they were, I mean, it's a hashtag, you can't police that. You can't blame some guy on Twitter who is just concerned with Ethics and sends a few rape threats to Hillary Clinton THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT SERIOUS with some other guy who murders people because that's totally unfair. And also (continued on thread 94)

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 292

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 292

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 292

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Comment Re:Oh good, a reason (Score 1) 346

What are Trump and Cruz's views on NSA mass surveillance? I doubt that either oppose it but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Rubio's comments don't seem, on the surface, to be out of whack with 99% of Republicans. I'd be surprised if other current candidates considered by most to not be insane strongly disagree with him on this. (Yeah, Rand Paul might, but he's already dropped out, and in any case...)

What makes Rubio more attractive than those two are that he's not on the theocratic wing, unlike Cruz, and... well, he's not Trump.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money cannot buy love, nor even friendship.

Working...