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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 389

John Podesta is a Smart Guy, but he was stupid enough to fall for a phishing attack

He wasn't just stupid, he was ignorant in an area vitally important to his job and the country. One of his passwords was "P@ssword" sent over plain text. Another of his passwords was "Runner123", crackable by a dictionary attack in seconds. He also used "Runner5678", also easily crackable. He obviously reused passwords, hence his twitter account was hacked after his apple ID password was leaked. He didn't have 2 step authentication switched on. He used open wifi hotspots on public transport, and as we all know he fell for that phishing scam. He very nearly became part of "President Hillary's" cabinet, possibly Secretary of State. I don't know what areas he's smart in but he sounds like an idiot to me.

Comment Re: Expect drama (Score 2) 161

Ebert never demonized entire groups of people, or made racist or disgusting remarks about them. Even when he made a dumb statement about video games not being art he made his argument respectfully and dealt with the criticism respectfully. His perspective was completely ignorant, not as glaringly stupid and lacking in reason as Sarkeesians, but it was still from the point of view of someone who never played games. However, he didn't run to the media about being a victim. He was the media, one of the few good ones in an industry of trolls and he respectfully disagreed. When he realized he couldn't convince anybody he wrote a follow up article and left it at that. He was told he was wrong many many times by many smart people, and probably a few trolls as well. He handled it like a reasonable adult.

Sarkeesian on the other hand responded by playing the victim, demonizing her critics, and using the media to write a narrative that she was the victim of an "abuse" campaign. The negative response Sarkeesian gets is as a direct response to the way she insults and generalizes entire groups of people, making arguments from ignorance. She's also taken huge amounts of money in donations and failed to deliver on her Kickstarter promise which is now overdue by 3 years. She is considered to be a scammer, but also a racist and sexist scam artist who avoids addressing her critics directly, and instead uses the media to attack them indirectly. Hopefully that should explain why she gets a more negative reaction than Roger Ebert.

Comment Re:Which Side Fought Against Disclosure, Again? (Score 2) 161

After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing

Do you have a citation of this? Show your workings. What are you defining as harassment? Who specifically is being doxxed and by whom? How are you calculating that "most of it" is "by gamergate fanboys". You mentioned Felicia Day, but what evidence do you have that she was doxxed and that it was a "gamergate fanboy"? Was this information publicly available information that was just copy\pasted from a public source? Is that really doxxing? Or was this private information known only to a few? If so, who discovered this private information? Where was it stored? Was this someone close to Felicia or in a position of power? How was this private information transferred to a public medium? Who made this transfer, and how do you know their personal feelings on gamergate? These seem like basic questions. I presume you have answers for all them. I'll be checking. BTW, "gamergate fanboy" just seems like a meaningless label to carry emotional rather than specific factual information. What are you specifically trying to communicate with that label?

Comment Re:I read some of the comments to her (Score 1) 467

But they didn't think about it, and then they did it. So it's done. What's your solution? Welfare? You pay out of your taxes in exchange for them learning their lesson about trolling little girls. Though technically, they could probably still troll and collect welfare.

Or what? Deny them welfare, employment and education? Follow them around for life?

What is your actual solution to the people behind these public shamings? Because when you find a new mob to bring excitement into your quiet and timid life, these people are still roaming about, and have to do something, and have to feed themselves somehow.

Comment Re:I read some of the comments to her (Score 1) 467

Yeah, okay but then what. You don't hire them. I don't hire them. Nobody hires them. Then what?

"Oh but they should have thought". Yeah, obviously they didn't. Now they have no job, and according to some people shouldn't have an education.

No job, no prospects of bettering themselves.

Then what. You have angry men with nothing to do walking around. What's your SOLUTION to these specific people?

Comment Re:I read some of the comments to her (Score 1) 467

I hope every one of these sick little fuckers loses their job, gets kicked out of school *and* has their name attached to the story.

And then what? Go on welfare? Be homeless? Beg on the street? Never get an education or an opportunity to better himself? Life in jail? Never be able to get a job again? What's your plan that doesn't somebody else (likely us taxpayers) having to support them for the rest of their lives? Are you comfortable with angry people walking around with no money, nothing to do, and completely desperate?

Comment Actually, no. It's 2.0001 parent babies (Score 5, Informative) 199

Since this story has been around for a couple of days I would have hoped slashdot would know better and have avoided the sensationalist headline. Here's what the experts say.

The biggest problem is that this has been described as three-parent IVF. In fact it is 2.001-parent IVF," Gillian Lockwood, a reproductive ethicist, told the BBC. "Less than a tenth of one per cent of the genome is actually going to be affected. It is not part of what makes us genetically who we are. It doesn't affect height, eye colour, intelligence, musicality. It simply allows the batteries to work properly."

Comment Re:Better Late Than Never (Score 0) 693

One naturally begins to suspect the movement is less than entirely honest about who and what it's targets are.

That's not really a nice way to look at people. You personally find it difficult to see what their goals are, so your next assumption is that they are dishonest? I believe that's a variation of argument from incredulity. Surely you can't be going around in life assuming dishonesty everytime you don't understand the aims of a group.

I don't really see what the goals are for most political movements, to be honest, such as Occupy Wall street, but they sure seemed like nice friendly people when I talked to them.

Also, how does an entire group of probably tens of thousands of loosely connected people act dishonestly? It would be difficult to organize that. It also doesn't hold up well to Occam's Razor.

Comment Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate (Score 1) 693

Probably a better term for "SJW" in its current dominant usage would be keyboard warrior, however the horse has already bolted.

To paraphrase James Randi, "words are defined by their usage". "Social Justice Warrior" has definitely a predominantly pejorative usage, generally used to describe the self important authoritarians rather than the selfless compassionate ones. For example, few people who use SJW as a pejorative would ever describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an SJW, yet SJW will be used predominantly to describe self important keyboard warriors

At this point, SJW has as much chance of having a predominantly positive usage as "Men Rights Activist".

Comment Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob (Score 5, Insightful) 693

I've looked into this too. There are certainly threatening comments on twitter, but these get labelled as "By Gamergate" without any kind of awareness of the association fallacy. A threatening comment is always the responsibility of the individual. There are threatening comments all over social media, and anyone can be a victim of it. The media have been parroting this online harassment as fact without distinguishing it from criticism or just rudeness, and also without any acknowledgement of the same harassment on the other side. Active Gamergate supporters seem to vastly outnumber the anti Gamergate crowd by an order of magnitude, so I wonder if that makes it seem worse.

After 5 months of "GamerGate" there's been no arrests, no serious evidence of any imminent threat published or connection to any organized "harassment" campaign. Gamergate supporters themselves have been harassed, swatted, sent malicious objects in the mail and this is largely ignored in the media. Possibly because many of them took a different approach, and didn't kick up that much of a fuss about it, or perhaps because it doesn't fit the media's narrative.

This is my personal experience only, but the vast majority of gamergate supporters I spoke to were laid back, intelligent, friendly, and positive. There was the same ratio of weird but nice people that you'd find in any group really. However, many of Zoe Quinn's supporters ranged from being rude to abusive to authoritarian. They had an air of mocking superiority that gets old really quickly, and why I stay away from twitter.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)