Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wow (Score 1) 104

by squiggleslash (#48228575) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Yeah, we all forget that Microsoft peaked in 1982 and has subsequently been losing money ever since. You should see how much money they lost when they took advantage of the PC's success to bundle Windows with MS DOS.

It's a wonder they didn't go bankrupt in 1995.

(Yes, Microsoft was moderately successful prior to the 1990s. In the 1990s though they both used their high marketshare to establish an actual monopoly, squeezing out competitors like DR, and then used their monopoly to strangle potential future threats, such as Netscape. It wasn't pretty but it was highly profitable, especially the first part.)

Comment: Re:IBM no longer a tech company? (Score 3, Insightful) 104

by squiggleslash (#48228531) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Only because they're trying to corner the market. And yes, I'm aware they kind of invented the type of cloud system that they are, but Bezos has been explicit from the beginning that he doesn't want competitors, and he'd rather see a few years of losses with the service underpriced than have a small share of the market.

I personally wouldn't invest in Amazon. That said, overall the company seems sustainable, it can afford to make losses like the one last quarter in part because it can easily reverse those losses if it ever becomes a serious problem. They're playing the "very long" game, everything they do seems to be aimed at ensuring they're a significant player 50 years from now. To me, that's absurd, you can't predict the future like that, but, hey, if they want to try - with other investor's money - then more power to them, it's that kind of attitude that moves us forward - usually.

Comment: Re:Those bastards? (Score 1) 94

Counterpoint: They invented FAT, which is where significant amounts of the royalties are coming from.
Counter-counterpoint: If they invented FAT, and Android Phones are feeling obliged to support it, they should probably be paying Android phone manufacturers $20 per unit...

(OTOH, FAT was a significant improvement on the CP/M file system, its biggest rival at that point, so there's that. Still, it says a lot that the actual FAT related patents they're collecting Android revenue on are actually for hacks to get around some of FAT's most stupid LIMITATI.ONS)

Comment: Re:Free aggregation? A problem? (Score 1) 95

by squiggleslash (#48220331) Attached to: German Publishers Capitulate, Let Google Post News Snippets

Actually, they wanted their work featured on Google News and get paid for it.

I know. Why do you think they want to be compensated for it, if, as the original poster argued, the mere presence of their work in search results is positive compared to search results existing where they're not present?

Their problem is the existence of search results to begin with. They want compensation from the fact they have to exist in an environment that's actively hostile towards the way they're structured, and they don't see an easy way to adapt to that environment.

Comment: Re:Free aggregation? A problem? (Score 5, Insightful) 95

by squiggleslash (#48215447) Attached to: German Publishers Capitulate, Let Google Post News Snippets

20 years ago, you woke up in the morning, heard a "phhhpmp" at the front door, went over, saw the newspaper that you pay to get delivered every morning on your carpet under the letterbox, would grab it, take it to the table, make yourself breakfast, and then read. You'd read news from that newsppaer. That newspaper would take on the honored (or not so honored in some paper's cases) role and responsibility of guiding you through what's happening in the world. To that paper, that position was a relationship to be developed, nurtured, built upon. Your loyal readers would come back day after day, they'd actually subscribe.

Today, you visit a website on your tablet, phone, or PC, usually multiple times a day. Britney Spears' nosejob is a click away from your Twitter stream to the CNN website. An email comes in, and you, on the recommendation of your friend, reading a Huffington Post article about cats. Then you get another email from your mother, and you're on healthy-stuff.com reading about the seven fruits that might stop you getting cancer. Oh, and a person walks by your desk, and says "Did you hear? OMG you didn't? It's everywhere, terrorists just attacked the Dallas book depository, hundreds dead!", and where do you go?

Well, Google, You go to Google. You enter "dallas", and you already have a choice of articles to read, but you click on "More news about Dallas" and there are 50,000 breaking news articles about the incident at the book depository, including articles from news organizations you've never heard of, that are local to Dallas, whose views and coverage you'll respect for this one story... and then never visit again.

At no point have you ever said "You know, I'm going to get my news from the St Olaf Bugle, I'm looking forward to reading it tomorrow."

That is what they're afraid of. That's why several publishers are getting out of the newspaper business altogether, it's why Rupert Murdoch keeps doing stupid things like buying social media networks and starting enewspapers for tablets, and it's why German newspapers are not overly enthusiastic about having their work featured on Google News.

Comment: Re: Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 164

by squiggleslash (#48202999) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love
As a postscript, a journalist who did something similar to what I did, writes here about his experience. Again, if you (as seems increasingly unlikely) really are concerned about corruption in journalism, you should probably stop telling people who ask for examples to go off and do their own research.

Comment: Re:Systematic bias, but also something else (Score 1) 765

by squiggleslash (#48199015) Attached to: NPR: '80s Ads Are Responsible For the Lack of Women Coders

I'm in the same boat as he is, and I know what he means.

It's not about denying access to ponies or princesses. It's about (1) not assuming an interest or lack of interest (relatively easy - my daughter seems just as fond of Cookie Monster and Thomas the Tank Engine as Abby and Madeline) and (2) not accidentally dropping the social cues that lead girls to see certain things as important in a way boys wouldn't.

It's very, very, hard, for example, for a dad not to tell my daughter how beautiful she is. But imagine, however, the effect it has on you if people around you, from the day you're born, talk about how pretty and beautiful you are. I never had that, because I'm male. My mother called me handsome from time to time, but it was never drilled into me that beauty was so important.

If she wants to consider it important, let her determine that herself.

Comment: Re:Can we stop trying to come up with a reason? (Score 1) 765

by squiggleslash (#48198935) Attached to: NPR: '80s Ads Are Responsible For the Lack of Women Coders

FWIW my experience of women as part of development teams has been largely positive, with one exception (not the woman herself, though she was fairly fiesty which in this case didn't help - or maybe it protected her, I don't know, but her supervisor, who was an out and out misogynist. She eventually left, because the company we worked for at the time kinda sucked like that.) That is, respect amongst male programmers for female programmers seem to be completely in line with what you'd expect for males respecting males.

Now, that said, I can't speak as a female in the same situation, so while the degree of respect might have been entirely reasonable, other factors may creep in that, as a male, I'm unaware of.

All I can say is as the father of a 2yo girl myself, I'm desperately hoping she has whatever opportunities she wants when she grows up. I think we in software development is decent enough that it's a field I'd have no trouble recommending to her. But, obviously, in the end it all depends on the group you end up working for.

Comment: Re:Like everything else, it depends ... (Score 1) 14

by squiggleslash (#48198495) Attached to: On posting anonymously

It's a real shame that you have to add all the disclaimers, and highlights the problems that we need anonymity for.

Yeah, though in the end... I was in part trying to keep a cool head with the disclaimers, but after a few days of research I must admit to being sufficiently unimpressed by the GG crowd, having shown it for the last few days just trying to get some straight answers, that I doubt being anonymous actually makes any difference. Ultimately it's hard to hide the fact you're the one with those opinions, unless you never say anything.

Ms. Barbara Hudson, 1312 rue Hyman, # 301, ...

I think you have a number of things going for you:

1. You know where APK lives too.
2. You live in a completely different country. ;-)

I'm glad we're maybe closer in views about the reaction of many towards Twitter death threats.

Comment: Re: Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 164

by squiggleslash (#48198379) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

There was an article on Slashdot about something GamerGate did that was going against the very journalists you're claiming GamerGate is ignoring. Slashcode even helpfully linked to it as a related story. It's right there at the top. The only way you missed it is if you're willfully ignoring it, which of course you are.

Not on my version of the page, no. The only link GamerGate related in the related stories list at least as rendered here is the Intel/Gamasutra/"Gamers" are dead thing (which I assume you cannot possibly mean, as it doesn't involve unethical journalism.)

FWIW, I also did your job for you. "My job?" I pretend to hear you ask. Well, yes. You're an advocate for a movement, and so the onus is on you to push forward examples of what you're fighting against, something you're refusing to do on principle.

So I trawled through a bunch of GamerGate Twitter streams, including Nero's. I looked at the Reddit KotakuInAction subreddit, which appears to be an organizing grounds for GamerGate. I looked at the negative responses to people like thequinnconspiracy and followed the links they were claiming.

And during this time, I found... zero cases. Well, let me back up a moment: there was one, involving Gawker, that was obviously a case of unethical journalism, with a journalist, as a joke, taking on a pro-bullying-nerds position, and GG rallying the troops against them. But I'm not counting it basically because it was a response to GG. The Gawker idiot would never have made the joke if there wasn't some giant group he thought represented nerds running around being apparently nasty and evil.

But in terms of independent cases of journalistic corruption? As in EA offers to swamp SuperGamerMagazine.comnetorg with expensive ads in response to good reviews for The Sims 4? As in BioWare gives Slimy McSlimepants from AGN his own Asari sex doll in exchange for a great review of Mass Effect 7?

No. Not one example. Nothing.

What I did see was primarily articles about how terrible the meida was because they're lying about GamerGate. Not lying about video games, but GamerGate.

I also saw some fake conspiracies. Yep, fake. I mean so fake it should have been obvious to everyone commenting. Like an email "leaked" from The Guardian that the "leaker" claimed contained an attack on GamerGate. Except it didn't. It contained an attack on people using the #killallmen hashtag. It was right there in the subject line. The leaker hoped that people would take a sentence that occured after the attack on #killallmen users, saying that a prominent feminist would be in the office to discuss GamerGate the next day, as meaning that the attack was about GamerGate.

Add that to the attacks on Quinn for having intimate relations with a journalist... which turned out to also be a fake conspiracy because said journalist wrote nothing about her, absolutely nothing, after the relationship started.

Add to that the attacks on Gamasutra for writing an article attacking gamers... except it didn't, it attacked the industry for only writing games aimed at "gamers" (the quotes are important, and yes, they appeared in the article), that is, a demographic of white immature teenage males that no longer makes up even a plurality of gamers. Oh, and even if it had attacked gamers... corruption? Really?

Well anyway, I'm seeing a pattern here.

Does the pattern matter? Well, probably not. In the end, the Guardian, and Gamasutra, and Quinn issues were probably peripheral, a movement desperately trying to find a positive identity when it knows there's considerable darkness holding it together. Quinn was attacked, not the journalist she had a relationship with. The death of "Gamers" article was written by a self-avowed feminist but wasn't radically different from criticism published elsewhere. The attacks on another feminist for publishing videos reviewing games from a feminist analytical point of view. The attacks on a female game developer including doxxing, her account being hacked, and a full on campaign of slander, because she documented some of the sexism she was dealing with in the industry.

And... well, we add to that SJWs. I don't mean the people, I mean the insult. The fact that GamerGate's opponents - by GamerGate's choice - are not journalists, but those who promote equality and inclusiveness and who oppose mindless sexism.

I did your job. I went out to try to find out what you were about. I did this after giving you the opportunity countless times to give examples showing GamerGate's good side, but you kept telling me to go off and do it myself. So I did. I think, based upon GamerGate's own words, that the group is primarily anti-women. The journalism thing is a smokescreen, I think in part because the GGs themselves are uncomfortable with the movement being solely about harassing female developers and developers who think about gender issues, it needed some underlying moral purpose otherwise it's just a bunch of nerds bullying women.

I'd say maybe it was a mistake not to engage me with examples of GamerGate challenging actual corrupt journalism, but I'm thinking you never had any.

Pro-tip: if I got it wrong, if you're really about corrupt journalism, then next time someone comes to you and says "I keep hearing conflicting things about GamerGate. I hear you guys are saying it's about unethical journalism, do you have anything about that?", you give them an example. Do NOT, under any circumstances, tell them to go off and search the Internet. Because they will not agree with you after they do.

As for me and you? We're done. You just asked me to wade through one of the worst cesspools of misogynist hate I've encountered in a long time. Your response to this will probably go unread.

Comment: Re:Like everything else, it depends ... (Score 1) 14

by squiggleslash (#48194069) Attached to: On posting anonymously

People behind keyboards, with a certain amount of anonymity or pseudo-anonymity, will behave more like jerks. That's a given, it's not news. Squiggy is asking what can be done, and how (and his observation is certainly true) people who post unpopular opinions are going to get attacked if they don't post anonymously.

Not even that. If I were to use GamerGate as the current example (because it's in the news), I think that by far the vast majority of people are opposed to "GamerGate" (that is, the group identified by the tag), regardless of whether they agree with the supposed moderates or not about media corruption. It's not an unpopular position to take to be against "GamerGate." But it is, nonetheless, a problem in certain circumstances raising your hand and saying so, because a small minority - GamerGate "moderates" would say they're external rabble-rousers and trolls, outsiders would argue they're likely a rump within the movement inevitable because of its history - will go on the extreme offensive, especially if the speaker is female and involved in the industry in some way.

(If anyone read the above as implying that all GamerGate supporters are misogynists posting death threats, you need remedial reading classes. I say this because I keep reading articles that go out of their way to avoid implying anything of the sort, making it clear they respect the concerns of many who use the tag, who still get "I'm cancelling my subscription because you said I hate women waaah!" responses. That said, I'm personally finding it harder and harder these days to take seriously the idea that GamerGate was ever about "corruption in journalism", largely because I've never seen a case of GG going after a real case of unethical journalism that existed independent of the movement itself. ie no the Gawker bullies thing doesn't count, because terrible though it was, it wouldn't have existed if GG didn't exist.)

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that there are nuts out there, and sometimes they're not lone nuts, and posting on certain subjects can leave you vulnerable and frightened.

In response to your other points, I don't agree that getting death threats via Twitter automatically means they're not frightening, or that everyone who acts upon them is a drama queen. Yes, a straightforward "We're going to rape and kill you hahaha" deserves eye rolling. But as the threats get more personal, and yes, posting the victim's home address and details of their family, however easy to find it might be (FWIW, not always trivial, just Googled my own name city and state and the nearest that came up to an address for me was an old address associated with a long defunct business) is legitimately going to scare the shit out of most ordinary people.

I have little doubt that Brianna Wu, for example, was doing the same things most would do under the circumstances. There's a drama around it, but largely because she's fighting back and making a point to. Good for her.

User Journal

Journal: On posting anonymously 14

Journal by squiggleslash

...as opposed to pseudonymously.

I'm finding it easier to post 100% honestly when I post AC on at least one subject at the moment. Why? Well, because if I post pseudonymously then I risk inflaming the wrath of an extremely nutty group, and I really don't have the time or patience or stomach for the kind of harassment I'd expect if I piss that group off.

Comment: Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. (Score 1) 164

by squiggleslash (#48185759) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

The journalist did mention her game. It wasn't a review but was definite positive exposure for a game that would not have gotten if they were not close friends.

According to Wikipedia, with a bunch of cites so I assume it's verified:

While Grayson had written an article about the failed GAME_JAM web reality show that Quinn participated in[23] and Kotaku had also mentioned her game,[24] both occurred before the relationship began.[20][8]

References are:

So it does appear to be demonstrably exposure for a game unrelated to the relationship between Grayson and Quinn.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...