Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Welcome to capitalism, bitches (Score 1) 296

It's simple as that: If movies with women in lead roles attract audiences, they will be made. If not, well, then not.

A few might have heard about the Ghostbusters reboot. Well? How did it fare? Erh... yeah. It did mostly recover its production cost. Did it recover its total cost including advertising? Probably not. Will it ever? It looks doubtful.

In the end, what counts is the bottom line.

Was it bad because it was bad? Or was it bad because there's a lot of guys convinced that a movie with a female main cast must be terrible, and they made sure everyone knew how bad and unfunny it was.

Nothing kills humour like being told something isn't funny (no one wants to look dumb by laughing at an unfunny joke). Want to know what Marvel as been so reluctant to make a Black Widow or Wonder Woman film? It's not that they can't find a good actress, or write a good script. It's that audiences have already convinced themselves that a film with a female lead won't be good.

Comment Re: Morons (Score 1) 296

Sure.

Put away your clipboard and stop running a tally on dicks vs vaginas, and what color they are.

If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies and capitalism will make it happen. To date they haven't, because it isn't what they actually want, so stop trying to force your fucking agenda down everyone's throats.

Don't watch movies you don't like. The end. Fuck off.

Well that's a wonderfully coherent philosophy.

If people wanted X they'd pay for X.
HEY!! Don't you go trying to convince people that X has value!!

And on a side note what ivory tower did you crawl out of that you think the profit motive makes people perfectly rational?

Could it not be possible that so many movies suck because they're reducing half the population to cardboard cutouts?

Comment Re: Morons (Score 2) 296

How about some male stereotype tests? Does this movie contain:

A male action hero who isn't good looking?
A male nerd who is good at talking to girls?
A fat guy who isn't the comic relief?
A cop who is happily married?
A gay action hero?
An asian guy who is a stud and doesn't know martial arts?

You know something all those male stereotypes have in common?

They generally have names and get to have a conversation with another male character about something other than a woman.

Comment Re:Who gives a shit (Score 1) 181

Irrelevant. I don't care about any of that stuff but I still hate people who don't have enough sense to block or log off.

Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you. Hence the need for different approaches that can pre-emptively block those would-be harassers.

As for logging off... Well if someone is going to be driven off the service I'd prefer it be the people doing the harassment.

Comment Re:Extraordinary claims require ... (Score 1) 290

Indeed. But Occam's Razor only applies to a conclusion's relation to the information you have at hand. It is conceivable that if you collect enough information the same heuristic can lead you in a different direction.

It should be able to confirm his genetic relationship to his putative great-great-great grandchildren, and thus let a lower limit on his age. That and other documentary evidence of him and his descendants could make his age seem plausible. In a world with seven billion people, outliers can be very unusual indeed.

The thing is that age isn't the result of one thing. It's the confluence of multiple systems that only evolved to keep us going until 65 or so. With modern conditions that's closer to 85, but after that all our different systems start to fail, and fail hard. You need a lot of luck (and genetics) for each one of those systems to hold up.

Lots of people make it to 90, a few to 100, some exceptional ones to 110, if you make it to 113 you might be the oldest in your country, 115 and you might be the oldest on the planet, 120 and you're the second oldest person ever. And that's if you're a woman, if you're a man you can chop about 3 years off of each of those estimates. For a man to be 120 would required extraordinary scrutiny, 125 would be absurd, 145? You're looking at about 3 or 4 layers of exceptional outliers.

To make it to 145, you'd need a subgroup with unprecedented genetic differences. This isn't Usain Bolt running 9.58 when everyone else is 9.80, or East African's making 2:10 marathons look routine. This would be a sprinter running the 100 in 8.5, or someone else running a 1:50 marathon. It's just not something that happens.

Comment An auspicious date (Score 3, Interesting) 290

The Unix Epoch is 01/01/1970, this guy is recorded as being born 31/12/1870.

Perhaps someone was born 31/12/1969 and some function was trying to translate timestamps from one system to another.

One day before the epoch is a bit of an edge case, and timestamp conversions can be funky. So instead of subtracting 1 from the 70 the function subtracted it from the 19 and now you have an official, but nonsensical, piece of identification in the system.

Of course it clearly doesn't match the guy born in 1969, but surely someone noticed and "fixed" the problem by associating the record with it's rightful recipient, the oldest guy in the village.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 1) 181

No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."

Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.

And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.

Keep in mind that Milo never did that

Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody knows" can be a sufficient standard for them to bad someone for persistent harassment.

Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.

So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.

I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.

But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).

For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 0) 181

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what we're all talking about. Thoughtcrime is "harassment", disagreement is "threatening".

No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

What they are trying to stop is harassment, douchebags like Milo Yiannopoulos sending hordes of his minions out to spew their drivel at whomever was so outrageous as to try and be black and/or female without knowing their place and drive them off of Twitter.

Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 1, Informative) 181

The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.

So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?

Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.

As it is impossible to have an Intelligent discussion, andy any disagreement == harassment, yes.

Intelligent discussion?

We're apparently thinking of entirely different things because I don't know how anybody could classify these as examples of an intelligent discussion.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 1, Troll) 181

I don't even use Twitter, but it sounds like they'll just end up making a clbuttic mistake.

On the contrary doing nothing would be a mistake.

The risk twitter faces isn't being taken over by "Feminists" and "SJWs", it's harassment driving ordinary people away until there's nothing left but the alt-right.

It's the same decision reddit made, there's some communities that are simply unable to co-exist in the same ecosystem.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 1, Troll) 181

The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.

So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?

Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.

If you're harassing someone and they don't want to hear you anymore that's not "Feminist/SJW" talk, that's just common sense.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose

Working...