Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Damage control (Score 3, Insightful) 611

I care about things like buying a game on my account on my console in the den and letting another family member play it on their account on my other console in the home theater, without incurring a $10 fee or having to re-buy the entire game. The "ten family members" thing is a bullshit solution that I do not accept. It needs to be tied to my hardware, which they know is mine because I register it with serial number on Then, anyone should be able to play the game in my home, whether it's ten people or fifty.

And, of course, phoning home absolutely matters when your internet is out. Or if you have a machine somewhere in your home that isn't connected. Or you are taking it with you to a cabin on vacation or something.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why or when you might do these things. As the customer, it is our obligation to say what we want and the company's job to provide it. It isn't my job to justify why I don't want to deal with their bullshit which in no way benefits the customer.

Comment Re:so what is porn? (Score 1) 310

No, the question is: What else can we foce people to have to opt-out of? (Even though most things on the net require you to OPT IN to them, anyway -- it's not like this stuff just shows up in your face). How about religious material? Political material? Suicide support groups? Sex information? Materials about evolution?

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 814

It's an issue, precisely because other people *do* make it their business. It's sort of like when people complain about "the gays" and how they won't just "mind their own business and keep it to themselves" while everyone saying that is busy trying to invade their bedroom and their private/personal lives.

I'm pretty sure most of them would quite happily see a day when nobody *does* care.

Comment Re::3 (Score 2) 814

Exactly this.

With our understanding of many mental illnesses and with the overwhelming consistency of having one set of genitals and naturally identifying as that same gender, I can see why we have this bias and why we so readily dismiss the abnormality. It seems easier to conclude that these are mental issues and, therefore, the mind should be addressed instead of catering to mental illness with such drastic physical/legal alterations.

However, if nature can get minds wrong, it can certainly get bodies wrong -- which means just as much weight must be given to the possibility that what someone feels they are is legitimate as what they appear to be.

This also raises conflicts. How in the hell can we possibly determine when we should be caring for a mental problem and when we shouldn't, so that the person can just make the change and move on with their life?

Comment Re:Some new questions for govt paperwork (Score 1) 814

Well, nature and reproduction would tend to disagree with your statement.

However, if someone is either of indeterminate or both genders or is not the gender on the outside which they inherently know themselves to be on the inside (I know some might assert this is a mental health issue, but I don't know how you prove or disprove that), I don't see how them rectifying that so that they can continue on with their life should bother anyone else.

That said, I'm sure there are also potentially valid reasons for retaining the "born" or "inherent biological" gender of a person, even after changing it as far as legality and identification. If we could move beyond the vile attitude against people in this situation, then retaining in some form in some place that single bit of information wouldn't be such an issue.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 814

Hey, it's Elledan from #hardocp!

I think the problem with how this is addressed (or lack thereof) is society has a tendency to lump everything into a single pile. As a result, general consensus *seems* to be that everyone dealing with gender issues is simply making a choice by whim and deserves the conflict and hassle of their self-serving and surely flippant-toward-society choices.

I don't think it's a case of willfully dismissing these issues. I think it's a case of people simply generally not understanding and not being presented with enough information to really understand. I've known colleagues and friends-of-friends who have dealt with these things and it really opened my eyes. Far from "selfish and flippant", a lot of people are born with both genitals and doctors and parents make a quick determination of what gender to assign to their child (sometimes with surgery to make it permanent), only for the child to grow into an adult that is absolutely the *OTHER* gender on the inside. That is, in every way but externally, they are the "opposite" gender. I can not even imagine what dealing with that must be like. Then there are those who were simply born one gender but they know in their heads that they are the other. Apparently there is precedence in nature for this occurring. However, we generally just think "what's in your underwear is what you are" and it is as simple as that.

Ultimately, I don't really understand why we care -- aside from affording people sympathy for what they have to deal with. If someone feels they are one thing to the point that they need to have i surgically corrected/affirmed and/or they ned to have it identified legally . . . how in any way does that impact anyone else? Is everyone just irrationally afraid that if they "tolerate" other people's personal decisions that some day they're going to end up dating someone of one apparent gender that *used* to be another? Is it really that primitive and selfish or . . .?

Comment Re:This is not unique to misogynistic content (Score 1) 114

Actually, it's probably a fantastic idea that Facebook doesn't allow anything to be posted that might be naughty in any way whatsoever (because, you know, words are obviously worse than actual actions or something). I mean, think about it. Law enforcement groups of all kinds trawl Facebook both to uncover crimes and to find proof of guilt for crimes they've already picked someone up for. If someone is a jackhole and smacked a bicyclist (no matter how much they often fucking deserve it) and then the cops dig around their Facebook profile and see a bunch of posts about smacking cyclists, then . . . well . . .

But if Facebook doesn't allow you to post anything "questionable", then Facebook is no longer a useful resource for uncovering the dirt to help establish guilt for an action.

Comment Re:What's the point of this? (Score 1) 114

How about all the women on twitter and facebook after Chris Brown beat the ever loving shit out of Rihanna and they were running around saying they'd let him beat the hell out of them? And attacking *her* for being beat up by him? That was pretty sickening shit. I didn't see any defense force out for that.

Pretty hideous shit, but it seems better to just let people be hideous so everyone else can have a platform to respond to them, which in turn emphasizes just how stupid the original hideous comments *are*.

Anyway . . .

"Call me crazy, buttttttt I would let Chris Brown beat me up anyyyy day"

"Everyone shut up about Chris brown being a woman beater... Shiiittt he can beat me up all night if he wants"

"Not gonna lie.. I think I'd let Chris Brown beat me #sosexy #lovehim #awkwardtweet #dontevencare"

"I'd let Chris Brown beat me up anytime ;) #womanbeater"

"I'd let Chris Brown beat me up"

"Like I've said multiple times before, Chris Brown can beat me all he wants.l... I'd do anything to have him oh my"

"chris brown could beat me all he wants, he is flawless"

"Chris brown.. Please beat me ;)"

"Chris brown could beat me up all he wants #idontcurr"

"I don't know why Rihanna complained. Chris Brown could beat me anytime he wanted to"

"Damn chris brown you can beat me up anytyme boo!"

"I would let Chris Brown beat me"

"I'd let Chris Brown beat me any day;)"

"I'd let chris brown punch me in the face"

"id let chris brown beat me"

"ok not gonna lie i'd let chris brown beat the eff out of me"

"i wish chris brown would punch me"

"Chris Brown could serenade me and then punch me in the eye. I'm down for it."

"I'd let chris brown punch me in the face"

"Dude, Chris brown can punch me in the face as much as he wants to, just as long as he kisses it (:"

"Chris brown can punch me ANY DAY."

"Okay i'd let Chris brown punch me in the face"

"chris brown can punch me whenever he wants #love"


Comment Re:Strange term (Score 2) 114

I don't even buy that these "pages" are real. There have been plenty of recent examples where someone staged hateful and sickening violent threatening (in at least one case, misogynist) comments on someone's page on facebook. Turns out, it was the "victim" herself leaving these messages from other accounts, to generate attention, sympathy, and publicity.

So . . . excuse me if I don't immediately buy into the bullshit, here.

Also, people shouldn't rely on some uber corp as their source of publishing and reading free-thought of any kind. If you want to say hideous shit or controversial shit and not be pressured by anyone or have something removed, put up a website.

Comment Re:How about a friggin' HATE button? (Score 1) 114

How about having friends in real life? Then you don't need facebook or anything similar at all.

My account consists of nothing but an image that says my email address and says if you want to talk with me, you should know how to reach me and if you don't know how to reach me, use my email address -- but either way, never expect a response on FB, because I don't use it.

People like to throw the excuse around that they just use facebook because "it's where all my friends are" or "to keep in touch with family", but I call bullshit on that. You can use email to keep in touch with friends and family. Or even better, visit them or make a fucking phone call. The best part is, then you can just deal with the important stuff and not spend every second of every day listening to the most mundane and trivial bullshit of every person's life.

Comment Re:Joke (Score 1) 509

I remember when gaming used to be a lot of fun. 2013 marks at least the third year straight where you can't fucking blink without someone screeching in your face about "gender issues". Note, it's only EVER about gender issues. I think gaming should work to be more inclusive, but it's just working to be more PC, instead. Worse, it's really NOT working to be more inclusive. Again, the only topic EVER discussed is "sexism". There is nearly never much discussion about homophobia, xenophobia, or race. Maybe for every fifty stories about how "mysoginyst" (used incorrectly, almost always) gamers and developers and publishers are, there *might* be one story that just briefly mentions race, xenophobia, or homophobia -- which I would suggest are actually far more frequently encountered in gaming than anything else. I can go for days playing online without hearing something about a woman in the kitchen, but I can't be in a game online for two minutes without hearing the N-word thrown around or gay slurs hurled around.

Comment One thing I won't be doing. (Score 1) 335

I'll tell you what I won't be doing.

I won't be replacing my RSS feed with full article content and images and videos that are static -- staying until I read them -- with high signal to noise ratio . . . with fucking twitter and facebook, which is what every fucking idiotic dumbshit pundit I have seen commenting about RSS the last few months has said everyone is doing, while RSS "is dying".

Comment Re:Modern Jesus (Score 1) 860

"Crucified" is hardly the word.

If there is more damage he can cause, you will find him dead in a hot tub from a stroke or heart attack or slammed into the site of a mountain in a plane crash or in a freak car crash. If he has already done all the damage he can, then they will discredit him by fabricating hideous and socially vile crimes against him.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.