Don't like criticism on the Internet?
then don't read it? I don't understand the need to respond.
Don't like criticism on the Internet?
then don't read it? I don't understand the need to respond.
Guess how much more useful that bullshit is than a 3.5mm headphone jack? That's called a downgrade.
Uh....wait. Why are the arguments "weak"?
The argument for inclusion is that it's an industry standard and extremely convenient port that has no signs of going anywhere anytime soon, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Headphones aren't going to suddenly stop being 3.5mm, nor are standard audio cables.
The arguments for removal....are what exactly? Maybe you'll get a 0.0001% increase in battery life or processing power? I guess it makes customers have to buy more shit to do the same thing they were already doing, which is good for Apple's bottom line? Or what?
Yeah, fuck that.
First off - no - , you made a claim that you utterly failed to follow up with. I've read their response - they still didn't write an article, or take an official stance, defending bullying, which is the impression the hysteria from your camp projects. Other people chimed in about the tweet, but nothing you folks clutch your pearls about holds water. You were basically farming for something - anything - to try and legitimize your group as being some kind of misunderstood victim, due to the term "sexist asshole" being nearly synonymous with "GamerGate". Nobody bought the act, sorry. You can't get blood from a turnip, and it was just a fucking tweet, not a Wikileaks dump, ffs.
Seriously fuck off with the whole "shitty human being" schtick. As I already pointed out, you GG folks didn't give TWO SHITS that actual female games journalists were getting DEATH THREATS and publicly doxxed - not having to deal with the much more severe problem, apparently, of reading a sarcastic tweet. How the fuck can you even bring up doxxing with a straight face...as though those women didn't have their personal information spread far and wide, all over the Internet in an attempt to cause them harm? Are you really THAT fucking delusional, that you see all the terrible shit that happened to those women as having nothing to do with what you call GG? Like no connection? All just a big coincidence?
The irony here is thick...on Monday you go on and FUCKING ON about how terrible easily offended "PC" culture is, with all of their SJW melodrama...and give us a lot of emo reasons as to why they're ruining your life, or whatever, and then, on Tuesday, you expect us to call in the national guard because some dipshit made a stupid NY-attitude tweet that hurt your little feelings. Yeah fucking right. Do you people not have a dictionary? Do you not know what a "contradiction" is?
The case is real simple, here. You can't bitch about some tweet, that offended you, when you didn't come to the defense of female journalists that were being ruthlessly threatened, and both condemn such cowardly acts and strongly clarify your group's positions in contrast - at the time. That didn't happen. You fucks added fuel to the fire and made these women's lives miserable.
Just for clarity, again, - my position is that you all suck. Fuck Gawker and their public shaming tabloid horseshit, and fuck GG and your anti-SJW mob-mentality bro-time horseshit. You fucks are two sides of the same god damn coin, and frankly I'm glad that both of you are dropping from the limelight. The world will be a better place. Maybe now people can be gay in the privacy of their own home, if they want to, and a woman can use her 1st amendment rights to speak about video games without a bunch of fucking neckbeards having an god damn aneurysm.
The rest of what you say is bullshit too. Like I predicted, you immediately pulled out the "No True Scotsman" card to explain away how GG is never responsible for anything...it's those mysterious "3rd parties". Give me a fucking break. Assholes have been saying shit like this since the dawn of time to scapegoat blame. Again, you'd have us believe that it was all a coincidence? That these "3rd parties" just happened to target female journalists at the same time your "totally legitimate" organization also had a lot of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at them? Sure....Fuck that.
So yeah, no fucking way do you get to start drawing imaginary borders between the things you do and do not want your little anti-SJW crusade to be associated with, and expect others to simply accept your convenient distinctions. Like a SJW, you know a GG jerk-off pretty much immediately.
Oh cry me a fucking river about the tweet. It was a "tweet", not an article, and one that was quickly clarified to be sarcastic joke, albeit not a very good one. I'm not going to deny that people that work for this news organization are a bunch of dicks...but this was a total red herring, with nothing to it. You're not talking about leaked secret emails or state dept. documents here.
Here's a fucking NEWSFLASH for you - people are human beings with opinions, and senses of humor. Gawker media is made of many, many of these entities, who may or may not all agree with each other.
They didn't write some elaborate article pontificating on the merits of bullying, as a news organization. One person made an unfunny joke in a whiny tweet, and the #Gamergate crowd apparently had skin thickness measuring in the sub-microns. FFS. Grow up. Everyone involved in this sucks, all around, and are a bunch of fucking crybaby drama queens. I shudder to imagine the epic meltdown when someone fucks up your Taco Bell order.
This same logic applies to "hypocrisy" you're attempting to point out. That concept only applies here, if we assume that there is one unifying voice that these entities all speak with. The authors at Jezebel and Gawker were obviously different people, with different motivations for what they were doing. At most, you're simply pointing out contradictory viewpoints from different authors, published on two different websites owned by the same company. That's not exactly a case of "hypocrisy" any more than it is for Fox to have their news channel, and run a blatantly left-leaning program like Family Guy, or a newspaper running contradictory editorials. You need more evidence, showing a biased intent, to support such a claim.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy - how about the attempts to crucify some NY dumbass over a tweet, while meanwhile, the #Gamergate crowd was saying and doing some pretty horrific shit, in a lot of the places that they had an online presence. Can you really fucking bring up "bullying" with a straight face, when women were literally receiving deaththreats for the injurious crime of having unpopular opinions, and wanting to voice those in a public place? If you're so against "bullying" in games journalism why wasn't that the focus of your goddamn campaign? I imagine you have some BS definition of "Gamergate" that does the No True Scotsman's shuffle to distance yourself from those folks, and some token "hey guys...chill out" forum post, but seriously - fuck that. You can't remove those parts of your "movement" for being too extreme, and then condemn something like Gawker media, as a whole, without, yourself, being pretty big fucking hypocrites. I'd put the onus of responsibility on YOU to explain why so many terrible fucking people flocked to your banner, and said and did some pretty terrible things in your name - on your forums, in your comment sections, and so on.
Like I said - you all suck. Gawker sucks for what they did to Hogan, and deserved to lose the case. Gamergate sucked, and was a bunch of horseshit that embraced terrible people saying terrible things. Fuck you all.
Uh...I think you're oversimplifying the situation.
Fact #1: A LOT of multi-platform games have abysmal PC launches. Stability, if not overall performance, is obviously superior on consoles. From the recent release of No Man's Sky, to Dark Souls III, to last year's launch of Fallout 4, PC launches are often plagued with crashes, glitches, and nearly unplayable states, compared to their console versions. That's what "just-simply-work" means. You go to the store, put in your disk, and the game will load and play just fine - not crash to your desktop and corrupt your saves. I personally prefer to game on my PC, but I never count on a game's launch being a window to actually get to play said games, reliably.
Fact #2: You're also not factoring in cheats and hacks, which are HUGE factors for multiplayer PC gaming, that almost never effect consoles. Several high-profile AAA titles are sometimes nearly unplayable only because the mp component is on the PC, such as GTA V.
I think you blow off the problem of older games a bit too easily. If a classic game gets relaunched for the PS4 or Xbox, it's going to work, flawlessly. Ditto for Nintendo's virtual console. Meanwhile, Steam Link has trouble streaming some older games to your TV, creating, what is inherently a flawed experience. This is an actual problem for a lot of gamers.
People like consoles because they come with the assurance that someone else has already teased out any potential problems, and you're going to get a pretty seamless end-user experience. Just turn it on and start the game. Even "Mom" knows how to start Netflix, or play some Mario from a quick-launch screen, and that's considering that "Mom" hates dealing with computers (using my own mother as an example...don't infer too much sexist commentary here, please...). If you're just some random person, not too tech savvy, the process for installing and updating a GPU + drivers is far more advanced than simply confirming a mandatory install for a console's OS. For all it's advancements, PC gaming is still seen as a hobby of investment, with specialized technical knowledge as a prerequisite for participation, as opposed to the pure leisure activity that consoles come off as, which are no harder to get started with than a DVD player.
Of course the problem with console gaming isn't PCs, it's that they have to share all these advantages with smartphones and tablets - which also eat the lunch of PCs, by being somewhat general purpose.
This is an issue about semantics, I'll agree, but I don't see why that's a bad thing. You're not going to find a topic that depends more on semantics than the law. "Semantics" implies that there is an issue about the meaning of a word, which is the absolute core of this issue. If you don't know what a word, like "suspect", actually means, in the legal sense, don't use it in a banner fucking headline involving law enforcement officers.
Similarly, don't cry foul when you get called out for it because YOU were ignorant.
I already replied to your above post, so we're going to have some deju vu here.
Basically, you're not accurately representing what Conservative Treehouse said. They claimed the victim was a SUSPECT in a crime, which -yes- would support the argument that he was "wanted" for said crime. That's what a suspect IS - a person wanted for a crime. It's a legal term, with a legal meaning.
Snopes called Conservative Treehouse out for using the terms "suspect" and "matches the description of s suspect" interchangeably, and rightfully so.
If you have to tell someone at one point in your life that you were a "suspect" in a criminal investigation, or that you "matched the description of s suspect" in a criminal investigation, those words imply VERY different meanings.
Nothing that Snopes has said is factually inaccurate. They didn't change anything.
That wasn't Conservative Treehouse's claim, and you know it. The exact headline was...
"Confirmed – Philando Castile Was an Armed Robbery Suspect – False Media Narrative Now Driving Cop Killings"
They claimed he was a "suspect", which was NOT true. You can't argue with the facts, I'm sorry. There's a HUGE difference between BEING a suspect, and matching the DESCRIPTION of a suspect. They are not interchangeable concepts. One is an escalation of the other. "Suspect" is a term that implies established evidence against a person in question has been definitively gathered. It has a very strict legal meaning, which involve things like Miranda rights, and you are NOT a suspect in a crime for merely being detained. This was obviously not the case for the shooting victim, and that's what Snopes was pointing out. He was never a suspect. Conservative Treehouse didn't know the difference, and got called out for it. Now, you're defending that same dumb mistake.
It doesn't matter how Conservative Treehouse qualified their headline in the actual story, the headline was a still a blatant lie. Snopes, in no way whatsoever, misstated Conservative Treehouse's words. They blatantly said that he was an "Armed Robbery Suspect" in plain fucking english. You don't get to pick and choose, after the fact, which facts are supposed to matter, and which ones don't when you speak.
So, yes, it's entirely appropriate to call you out for claiming Snopes made a "strawman" argument. They did not. Everything they said is factually accurate, unlike the Conservative Treehouse article. Quit defending stupidity.
Why should they have to jump through hoops to pick a way to frame something in a way that supports your conservative agenda?
So...if Snopes wanted to investigate the statements made by Conservative Treehouse, how, EXACTLY, were they supposed to do that according to you?
You even use the term "more correct framing". Snopes has no obligation to "correctly" frame things so that it suits your right-wing political goals. You understand that when you're calling for things to be "framed correctly", that you're doing that from a BIASED political point of view, correct? They factually reported on something that had a limited and specific scope, that did not leave the bounds of the website in question. That's all they did. There was nothing "incorrect" about their framing.
All of this bullshit about "false narratives" is coming straight out of your Ronald Reagan themed crystal ball. Nothing they said was "false". If you're telling the truth, and not being misleading in scope, you can't be guilty of providing a "false narrative".
They didn't make any other statements about other conservatives, or use misleading language to imply that this was an issue beyond "Conservative Treehouse", unless you think it's Snopes' fault that the website put "conservative" in their own name.
So...basically if Snopes doesn't go out of their way to have a conservative bias...then they automatically have a liberal one? Think about what you're saying. Snopes is supposed to come to some kind of consensus from the "conservative media" - before - publishing an article, and make sure to print things that represent this broad point of view. You lay out what they should have printed instead, which conveniently ignores the factually inaccurate information laid out by "Conservative Treehouse".
So, Snopes wasn't supposed to be investigating false claims made by individuals, they were supposed to be fact-checking the broad, consensus based, conclusions of the right-wing media, instead. Or what? What you're claiming Snopes should do is BLATANTLY driven by political bias, as it would automatically eliminate undesirable sources like Conservative Treehouse, and ironically, a hypocritical example of exactly the type of thing you're attempting to criticize Snopes for in the first place - which is to show bias.
You're essentially trying to claim conservatives shouldn't be held to standards for what they say, alone, but should be judged, instead, by the broader claims of their peers. To actually hold someone accountable for things they have said is somehow, paradoxically, "misleading", because it's not their individual thoughts that matter, but what the greater group thinks. Yeah, pretty scary shit.
Meanwhile, I can find multiple stories, right now, on the "What's New" page of Snopes which contain damaging things to say about Democrats, including Hillary.
You go as far to call the act of Snopes rebuking a factually incorrect website a misleading "strawman", which is utterly and fundamentally a misuse of those words. You're not making a "strawman" argument if you're fact checking what someone has said. That's not what a "strawman" is.
You see...the part crucially missing from your argument is the non-existent paragraph at the end of the article where Snopes says "Oh yeah, by the way, most conservatives think this way...vote Hillary". If anyone makes judgement calls about another conservative based on the actions of conservative treehouse, that's on them, as Snopes, obviously, didn't advocate this.
Have you considered that maybe it's "reality" and those pesky "facts", and not Snopes, that's making some conservatives look bad? Snopes didn't make up "Conservative Treehouse", after all.
I have to double reply to this, sorry.
It's gets even harder and harder to accept that this was some kind of "assassination" unless you think the Clintons are the stupidest people on earth. If you were trying to "disappear" someone...wouldn't you...you know...make it "look like an accident"?
Why would you outright murder them - an act SURE to open a criminal investigation, instead of making it look like a suicide, accident, etc.?
When coupled with what, exactly, their motive would have been in the first place, this just doesn't make any practical sense whatsoever. There's no way Clinton is stupid enough to kill someone, before an election, out of "revenge".
It sure does make some kind of conspiratorial sense, I guess...but why would you do something like this? What possible benefit would the Clinton campaign gain through murder that wouldn't be MASSIVELY offset by the risk of actually murdering someone?
Murdering someone for political purposes seems like the worst possible thing you could do right now as a candidate, for any reason. Why? Was he going to "leak" even more? Surely, if so, he had things already in place to accomplish this, in the case of his untimely demise.
In other words, the motive is extremely unclear.
Meanwhile, however, Assange has a double-whammy opportunity here, as a known Clinton hater. He can both insinuate that Clinton might be a fucking murderer AND protect the real identity of whoever he has on the inside, by taking advantage of an unfortunate coincidence.
Until we see some proof that the murder victim actually was the leaker in question, I'm going to go with Occam's razor and pick the latter as the most probable explanation, here.
For your analogy to make any rational sense, the NYT would have to BE a foreign agent attempting to illegally hack into computers under American jurisdiction. This isn't in any way, shape, or form remotely similar to Daniel Ellisberg leaking the Pentagon Papers. Ellisberg, a US government employee, made a choice of conscious, and was charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property.
Let's repeat that for emphasis...
ELLISBERG WAS CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY, ESPIONAGE, AND THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. THE NYT WAS CHARGED WITH NOTHING.
The only reason the charges against him were dropped was due to the revelations of the Watergate scandal. The Nixon administration tried to stop the NYT from publishing the information, but was shut down by the supreme court, who made a pretty strong statement in favor of the free press. So NO. These situations are NOTHING alike. Ellisberg is much more similar, in character, to Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, than China or Russia. I'm going to remind you that Manning is in prison, and Snowden lives in exile. REPORTING NEWS and COMMITTING A CRIME are entirely different actions, for fuck's sake. If the NYT had hacked a computer, and leaked the information, they could both win a Pulitzer AND go to jail for committing a crime. Two actions - two consequences. The news story here is that a presidential candidate is advocating a foreign agent to commit a crime, you fucking idiot, and has nothing to do with reporting the news.
Apples and oranges, but don't let logic get in the way of that axe you have to grind.
C for yourself.