Posts by magrathea 88 publicly visible posts • joined 8 May 2012
"yes said it all 3 because they were all great i never really cared for the story"
Ok..so you never had any vauge interest in the premise, ideas and so any sense of distinction by quality in this field is lost on you. This is a bit like my attitude to golf.
The problem is hollywood seems to be increasingly hiring people like you to make the films.
The comment was made by man and so is likely sexist.
If the focus of the comment is male then it is male posturing, if it is female, then the comment is demeaning and oppressive. Ideally men should not make any reference to sex, unless it is unambiguously complimentary to a female (after asking permission first in a non-confrontational manner)
All comments made by women regarding sex are empowering and should not be subject to patriarchal value judgments
Not being sexist isn't straightforward, but is worth the extra effort
"Our "brain wiring" is just as much a product of what we do regularly and as our nature."
That’s supposition.
We do know there are significant physiological differences between men and women and in all cultures men and women display significantly different preferences and responses in aggregate. Even if your assertion were true, wiring would take overwhelming precedence in most cases because it is there without further action
“On the other side is the fact that many women see IT security (and probably IT in general) as the domain of spotty geeky glasses wearing male teenagers who rarely raise their heads above battlements of pizza boxes and fizzy drink tins”
Perhaps; and perhaps the perception of nerdy-low-status is very important and negative to women because of their wiring regarding the social status of males.
We can only afford to give special, elevated consideration to the problems one sex - If everyone (men included) claimed women’s special societal benefits (legal and societal) , the whole system would collapse. Women get these benefits because women are conditioned from childhood to expect special preferential treatment from males and men are conditioned to accept the hit without complaint. Society couldn't work if men were made legally equal to women. Please try to be practical about this
"That's exactly what has happened to the Internet, and it is why ordinary people will support more and more draconian laws."
Yep. I understood your point when you outlined it earlier with one sentence. The problem is you support it despite your theory modelling it as disengenuous
"without realising it is your actions that drew their attention and give the authorities all the excuses they need to impose stronger controls on the Net in the first place"
Controls that you applaud even though you here suggest that the rationale for them is an excuse? Odd. But as this is just more of the same 'don't make me hurt you' abuser logic you defend in the rest of the thread ..perhaps not so odd after all
"A typical human eye can perceive about 15 distinct frames per second. Traditionally, "
True, you wont see - distinct frames - over about 15 but you will see a difference in smoothness. This difference is not subtle. There is a noticeable difference between gaming at 40fps and 60fps and another noticeable difference between 60 and 100. The difference between say 20 and 60 is profound and is the difference between all but unplayable and comfortable
"There are no games that I know of which tax any generation i7"
Actually there are. Arma 3 will happily tax an i7 - though the issue would seem to be utilisation of the chip. IL 2 cliffs of dover will also push a stock 17. By this i mean, you would get better game-play from more cpu. For most 'run of the mill' games what you say is true, but it becomes less true with some of the 'non standard' or simulation types of games.
How exactly is a dongle joke, sexist? Is any mention, however indirect, of a penis, sexist? Is it sexist if a woman makes a dongle joke or makes an equivalent joke about female genitalia? Is this policy, and your opinion about what constitutes sexism, solely directed at men? I would hazard it is
They broke policy by making a lewd joke, Sexism is just a word thrown into the mix by this lunatic woman in order to justify behaving like a spoilt toddler
If the genders in the scenario were reversed, the man would be being 'too demanding' and to-boot also chauvanisticaly assuming the women was his property. Odd how, no matter what the situation, it is always the man who is somehow criticisable and the woman the 'victim' of him...somehow
"How about they raise taxes on booze in supermarkets and use it to directly subsidise booze in pubs!"
Instead of wealth redistributiion to micromanage and shape the entire alcohol economy, why not repeal the smoking ban to again allow pubs to provide the services demanded by their clients?
"tax the assholes who get shitfaced on a couple of gallons of cheap booze every weekend and make everyone else's life a misery"
I hate to nitpick, but there is no extra charge in this proposal for making people's life a misery, just a charge for getting shitfaced. So you can still make people's lives a misery, so long as you don't get shitfaced and you will still get charged for being shitfaced even if you don't make people's lives a misery. See how it works? Also, there are already a raft of 'charges' for making people's lives a misery; fines and imprisonment
I think in all the years i have used yahoo messenger i have ever once been moved to click on one of the idiot news items that appear in the splash thingy that pops up. You would have thought that one item, once would have drawn my attention..but no; nothing but celebrity drivel and fashion every - single - time. I tried to use yahoo search once, but the same problem but more so. You are bombarded by entirely uninteresting diversions that you don't want to be diverted by. Whatever makes yahoo awful seems to be part of a conscious, consistent policy on their part
If it's a scarce resource, then it will be charged for accordingly by the licence holder no matter what price the government charges them for the licence. The government charging a low price won’t reduce the scarcity or the price to customers; it will just allow the licence holder to pocket unearned money for it.
"But that type of reasoning - deal with the problem person before they become the person pointing a gun - does not go down well with the huggy-feelgood crowd who would rather ban guns in the mistaken belief it ensures the safety of the children."
I don't think most of them even believe that really. This issue has more to do with power, control; making others tow your line. The worrying thing is that the reasoning used (if it saves a child's life it must be worth it) has no limits
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
