Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This could be really good for Debian (Score 4, Insightful) 204

by Bruce Perens (#48188887) Attached to: Debian's Systemd Adoption Inspires Threat of Fork
I am beginning to be wary of systemd, but no. I am talking about anal-retentive policy wonks who believe they only make the distribution for themselves and have (perhaps without intending to) systematically marginalized Debiian and made the project a whore to Ubuntu.
User Journal

Journal: On posting anonymously 1

Journal by squiggleslash 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) 160

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.

Comment: Re: Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 160

by squiggleslash (#48185635) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

Yes, we are giving you examples. Your head is so far up your SJW ass that you're just claiming they're all "debunked" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to bother reiterating them since there are a ton of examples already posted.

1. Strike One: claiming you're giving examples while not actually giving examples.

2. Strike Two: pejorative attack on SJWs. Again: if this was about journalism, you'd be criticizing journalists, not people who believe sexism is wrong.

The simple reality is that corruption is happening in the gaming media and GamerGate is fighting to expose that. Not surprisingly, the media being exposed is fighting back by trying to control the story and paint GamerGate as being "sexist."

How do you expose something if you're unwilling, after being asked directly, to give an example? If I asked you "Oh really, Wikileaks is about exposing government malfeasance huh? Give me one example!", you'd hit back with "That video of the helicopter gunship attacking first responders", not "We've given you plenty of examples you're just being mislead by the Mexicans!"

The whole "sexist" thing is just journalists trying desperately to change the subject.

So attack the journalists then. Go on, start now. If it's not about sexism, you'll never need to use the term "SJW" again.

You are a shining example of why GamerGate looks a bunch of sexist nerds hating on women. You attack SJWs, do not attack journalists, claim you're attacking journalists, but given a straightforward opportunity to give an example of something they've done refuse to answer.

Those you're up against? They're actually giving examples of GamerGate attacking female game writers and non-corrupt female commentators. That's why they're more believable.

Comment: Re:Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 160

by squiggleslash (#48176295) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean it isn't happening

No, really, it isn't happening. People here who are pro-GamerGate are not, when they claim it's anti-corruption in journalism, giving examples. That's why I asked for examples.

And you're clearly ignoring the evidence when you claim that Nathan Grayson "did not do anything unethical in return" meaning I'm wasting my time replying to you

You're wasting your time writing stuff like that because you're claiming he did something unethical without explaining what.

In case you missed it, and clearly you did, the core GamerGate complaints started with journalists that were giving money to the developers they were supposed to be covering

Again, no examples. For fuck sake, all I asked for were examples.

There was the discovery of the "journo-list", a mailing list where gaming journalists were collaborating and conspiring to turn this into an issue about misogyny instead of corruption - you know, exactly what happened!

"There was the discovery of"... occurred rather a long time later. And it doesn't make much sense unless you're implying that said journalists infiltrated GamerGate and started dropping the term SJW everywhere, perhaps pretending it meant "Standard Journalist who is Whoring themselves" rather than "Social Justice Warrior".

The reason people are using SJWs as a pejorative is A) because it IS and B) the journalists who were caught saw that they could exploit the SJW crowd and get them to completely drown out the complaints

I hate to tell you this but this comes across both as a bizarre and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory (the corrupt journalists ganged up and made it sound like a social justice issue to people not involved in the discussion?), and also as dodging the question.

All I asked for is for those people making the claim that this is about journalism to do the same thing that the people making the claim that this is about misogyny to do the same thing: to quote examples. And I pointed out that the fact that in this thread, they've chosen not to do so, and that this is hurting their argument.

It is. Responding to me saying "It is too about journalism and you're a poopy head because you haven't been reading enough of what we've written elsewhere" isn't helpful. It hurts your claim.

Comment: Re:so im sure the pitch for this one was great. (Score 1) 291

by squiggleslash (#48175437) Attached to: Michigan About To Ban Tesla Sales

Again, because I end up having to point this out in every thread: the manufacturers (the "auto exec" in this fantasy) are not fans of the dealership franchise system.

I know this personally, I worked for a company that handled the relationship between dealerships and manufacturers for about 15 years, including at various points at least one country's division of each of the big 3. My job was in part helping my employer in trying to tweak the business models of dealerships to make them the least burden on manufacturers they could be. Because they are a burden. And manufacturers see them as such.

The franchise laws are there because of a combination of lobbying by the dealerships themselves and perceived historical abuses by the manufacturers. No other reasons. I can tell you it's almost certain that, behind closed doors of course, Ford, Chrysler, and GM's top brass are cheering Tesla on.

Comment: Re:Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 160

by squiggleslash (#48170845) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

Can we have a rule that next time someone says "It's about X" or "It's about Y" you justify it by bringing in some context and describe actions by whatever group that fit the assertion.

Right now I see a lot of people like you claiming it's about journalistic ethics, but no apparent examples of GamerGate actually attacking _journalists_ for something clearly unethical.

The argument that it's actually a movement rooted in misogyny are currently much more persuasive because those making that case are actually giving examples: hounding an indie, unmarried, female developer for having sex with a journalist (who did not do anything unethical in return), hounding a feminist writing an article about changing video game marketing demographics, and hounding another female developer who made fun of (actually, retweeted someone else making fun of) sexist comments directed at her. Plus the use of "SJW" as a pejorative and the constant assertion that SJWs are "the other side" in this debate. If it's about misogyny, you'd expect that. If it's about journalism, you'd expect, you know, journalists to be the enemy...

Comment: Re:Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 160

by squiggleslash (#48168335) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

FWIW, I just did an experiment and tried to verify both of your claims.

Right now, if I go to what I get are posts along the lines of:

1. (The majority) They/you/someone says it's about sexism, but it's really about journalism!
2. Oh yeah? Well there are too women who support #GamerGate! Here's a selfie someone else took of themselves to prove it!
3. There's a conspiracy to misrepresent us by the gaming press! Just look at this biased Wall Street Journal article!
4. Buy our stuff! #GamerGate #Ebola #Obama #tcot #FanGate #Benghazi #SomethingElseTrendingRightNow
5. #GamerGate people are misogynist jackasses! Stop the harassment of {Latest victim} now! #StopGamerGate2014

So... uh. Maybe you guys need to start afresh with a new hashtag? It's fair to say that whatever your movement's "aims", they're not being discussed. You certainly aren't pointing at specific cases of journalistic corruption or anything like that, the entire thing seems to be meta.

Comment: Re:Ditch ChromeOS, focus on Android (Score 1) 183

Because you're wrong. Android doesn't have a desktop or file manager, and isn't centered around running remote applications using web standards. ChromeOS is built for cloud computing, Android is primarily a mobile device operating system designed for situations where limited bandwidth is available.

Comment: Re:Maybe you would and maybe you would not. (Score 1) 110

by squiggleslash (#48161263) Attached to: Journalists Route Around White House Press Office

The GP is right, unfortunately. You want greater transparency on stuff that matters, but the GP has quoted a journalist indicating that their idea of transparency doesn't match yours, and this article is about what journalists want, not what you, me, Glenn Greenwald, etc, want.

What you're - perhaps unintentionally - highlighting is itself interesting although something we've known for years that's illustrated perfectly by, say, Politico - modern political journalism is not about holding politicians to account, it's about gossip, being in with the in-crowd, and confusing the public interest with what the media thinks the public are "interested" in.

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.