"Allow your Apple Watch to unlock your Mac"
It's visible from a mobile phone display without zooming in... That is definitely not a screenshot of a Windows .. window.
149 posts • joined 11 Jan 2012
"How about treating people like humans instead of being a condescending prick? Somehow I think she'll survive another day of her life without your 'care'."
Oh gosh, are we that delicate and fragile that men can't engage with us as equals in rational discourse? Male feminist allies are some of the worst sexists I've ever come across.
Can I object to you not knowing anything about the people you're calling nutjobs? The friends I've made the last two and a half years taking a hammering from the MSM while goons and other 3rd parties trolled the crap out of both sides and pinned it in each side, spent yesterday discussing Mass Effect and other Bioware games and which characters were well written, which ones were fun to play, and whether ME3's ending was all that bad. The guys I've made friends with through GG have done more to help me recover from the real life abuse i suffered, than any so-called feminist or "inclusive" SJW. Considering it all kicked off because an abuse victim was pilloried for doing what we're encouraged to and outed his abuser, it's hardly surprising though.
" I shouldn't have to say this to anyone, but harassment of women is a real thing. It happens in real life, it happens online, it happens at work, it happens at home. It is pervasive, cross-cultural, multi-national, and occasionally deadly."
Being disagreed with online is not harassment. Being debated is not harassment. Being corrected when you're making baseless claims about media you are supposed to be knowledgeable about is not harassment. Mysoginists are actually very rare compared to the vast majority of men who are just like us, trying to get on in this world. I've met and been a victim of ONE in my life of living in geeky communities and working and learning in male dominated communities. And that one was not from any of those communities.
SocJus and feminism needs to police its own before pointing fingers at the rest of us, harbouring and enabling abusers and child molesters and sexual abusers. Time after time we find some big name held up as a shining example of progressivism in the community has some really nasty skeletons in their closet, and when those are exposed, the rest close ranks and support that person instead of taking a long hard look at themselves and asking why someone like that felt safe in their community.
Oh, and what you've posted is some of the most bigotted rubbish I've ever read here.
I always suspected closet mysoginist Jonathan McIntosh of being behind some of the threats to Sarkeesian. I reckon he was manning the account when it linked its 100k-odd followers to CP when some goon tweeted it at the FF account. "How do I report?" coming from someone who allegedly reports harrassing tweets all the time to twitter and the police.
Yes but our betters don't ever like to acknowledge aspergers or people on the spectrum unless they can use them for their own ends. You will see it a lot in articles and discussions that are critical of geek cultures, the tech and science industry etc. These articles do everything they can to erase and put down any traits and behaviours that are remotely associated with ASD. I've noticed this and I'm not even on the spectrum, and the many AS folks I know have seen it too. Studies like this (or more likely, the articles based on them) are an excuse for those that have a bee in their bonnet to bash the peeps that have a mental condition that can actually help them excel in a desirable field, rather than hinder them. It's one of today's acceptable forms of prejudice from our "progressively enlightened" betters.
Computer Science degrees are useless as a measure of geekery. The academic and theoretical nature of it eliminates a whole host of geeky types for one, and the grading will be skewed to average things out. They will adjust marking and grade boundaries so they don't get too many people with firsts (and we were told this throughout uni).
I knew many on my course who had a natural affinity for programming and logic, or for cgi, or web development, but spent their time poking around in the things that interested them specifically, not every thing the course offered (which was limited to what interested our geeky lecturers). We did well in topics that piqued our geeky interest, topics we found naturally *easy*, but less well in topics that on the face of it were dry and boring even if they were trivial to excel in.
Then there's all the geeks I know, have known - dated! - who had no interest in doing computer science whatsoever. If they were academically inclined, they did physics, electrical engineering, or courses specific to their interest like 3D modelling and animation. And there are many who won't go to uni at all, who gain their knowledge and expertise by getting absorbed and hooked on a particular subject, like computer security.
"In light of this assertion, lack of diversity in technology recruitment becomes more difficult to excuse as a consequence of natural ability."
Ah, and here it is, the agenda in play. So this is yet another in a series of attacks on geeky and nerdy people, trying to make out we're no different to the "normies", so the normies feel better about not being good at the things we're interested in? Talentless hipsters need to get back to their own subculture and stop trying to wipe out a culture of social nonconformists that are actually comfortable and happy in themselves.
Our government was mixed on joining a united Europe fully, the debates and arguments we are still having now have been going on for 66 years at least. And Churchill (in opposition at the time) thought we were better of outside of a united states of Europe because it would be to the detriment of world unity. I.e. Our place in the world and the relationships we had meant we were better placed outside a federal Europe, while cooperating and trading with it, to ensure a worldwide unity. I've seen Remain using him as a poster-boy for staying...
Instead, we got suckered into integrating further and further with the EEC/EU, isolating ourselves from the rest of the world, and are having to fight to hold on to what little we have left.
"battered partner etc."
Likening our relationship with the EU to an abusive domestic relationship will likely seen distasteful or hyperbolic to some, but it is actually incredibly accurate.
As well as the classic threats of retribution if one party leaves, there is:
- consistently undermining of confidence, repeatedly asserting the party who doesn't want to leave can't possibly cope or survive outside of the relationship.
- controlling every little aspect of the one party's life. Victims get "vetos" and "opt-outs" at first, total control is rarely taken straight away. It's done over time, little by little.
- the promise of change and reform if one stays, or the suggestion that there is a likelihood for change in that event. "if I stay, they will change"/"i can only change then if I stay" - said every victim and survivor everywhere ever. Only most of us have been fortunate to be able to get out before things got really ugly, and didn't take 40-odd years to do so.
- coercion of one party into doing something they don't want to do, ignoring "No", and badgering to get their way. Like completely disregarding member state's democratic processes and ignoring referendum results, or implementing things behind the scenes regardless, or reholding referendums until they give the right result.
- gaslighting and manipulation when one party realises what's happening, or starts to question what's going on. When the proof is in the mirror, or in our case, on Europa.
- isolating one party from their friends and family so they become dependent on the other.
- a slow erosion of one party's capabilities and means to be independent should the need arises, because the other party provides and does everything. We don't have experienced trade negotiators because the EU does it for us.
There are more, but these really jumped out at me over the last month or so of seeing Remain's excuses that are straight from the Battered Spouse's script, of reading the discussions in the commons on Hansard, of reading info on Europa, and mulling over my own experiences of such a relationship.
"How about I move to your neighbourhood and exercise my religious right to lynch bigots?"
You're welcome to try, but this 5ft 6in, 8st, not-bigotted woman will make that impossible for you. Internet tough guys have nothing on my ex, and I came out on top there.
Also, thanks for my first ever death threat!
As a woman in gaming, geekdom, and formerly tech, it's amazing that I've never had one from the alleged basement dwelling misogynerds that are supposed to be handing them out left and right.
It's taken 16 years for me to finally see one at all! And from some ~virtuous~ arsehole that. I'd be more surprised, but I know the worst offenders are those who don't like when the people they "speak for" talk back.
This one, but I'm wondering why the rest of you are stuck in the dark ages.
Are you seriously excusing both the government of the state AND Paypal for fucking over the people, and especially trans people, because you think some person somewhere will have religious objections to individual, non-gendered, lockable bathrooms?
Is your hatred of "the enemy" that strong you'd happily see those you ~believe~ yourself to champion, to go without - or worse, be made targets of?
And for the record, I use "the people" as a point of concern because I am one of them. Not in NC, but I'm one of "the little people", the marginalised, that these companies, self-righteous socialites, and all the weasely guilt ridden gits, use as a pawn in games for their own self interest.
I'm fucking sick of it, and I sure as shit ain't the only one.
And how many physical attacks on trans people for "using the wrong bathroom" in public bathrooms have there been?
Open plan, shared toilets are an awful idea all around. To ensure everyone's comfort and safety, do away with them and have individual rooms, like the single disabled bathrooms you get in places.
Instead of carrying on and setting a good example they're denying the people of the state jobs, because they don't like how the state is responding to an issue even genuine social justice advocates can't agree on?
Instead of paying all their staff a fair living wage at least, they're denying the people jobs because the state won't legally force them to pay a decent wage?
Instead of setting up their business in the state, and doing away with open-plan, gender segregated bathrooms altogether for their business, and opting to have multiple single room, non-gendered bathrooms, they're taking the easy way out?
(Seriously, what's not to like about private individual toilet rooms? And they're in a better position to implement such a system within their work place than small businesses who manage to do that regardless.)
Or is this all a lot more complicated than the article makes it out to be?
Because from where I stand, it looks like PayPal are fucking over the little people to thumb their nose at the state.
They're using "equality" as an excuse to flex their muscles and undermine the people's democracy.
And in the process, they're also painting a target on everyone they purport to give a crap about.
That's at least 400 people who are going to be directing their anger at the potential loss of job opportunities, not at the state or PayPal where it should be directed, but at the people PayPal have used as justification for their own selfish actions.
"The legislation was passed in a single day, and was unopposed in the Senate after Democratic members walked out en masse, calling the process an abuse of power. "
Is this like in the UK when opposition parties "abstain" when voting on contentious issues because they're too cowardly to say they agree with the majority party on the issue, or was there genuinely nothing they could do but walk out?
"For example, is this response of mine angry, condescending, friendly, or neutral? Can you tell?"
Your post is not directly angry in the slightest. You've used no words or phrases to indicate anger. That doesn't mean you weren't thinking "who's this arsehole?" or somesuch when responding, but your post doesn't particularly give that away.
"Errm... yes it is" coupled with the assertion that follows makes your response a touch condescending, but you're trying not to be obviously condescending since you've used "..." and put an extra 'r' in "erm" - these soften the tone of your first sentence, making it a less forceful opening to your rebuttal than a direct "Yes it is" or even an "Erm, yes it is" would be.
The rhythm of your sentences, lack of strong words, and the short and simple thought exercise to back up your assertion gives the meat of your post a neutral tone. You're being polite, but not actually friendly.
Then you end your post with a redundant "Can you tell?".
Since you've already asked me what the tone of your post is in the preceding sentence, this last sentence comes across as a challenge, and condescending.
You've sandwiched a polite and neutrally worded rebuttal between a mildly condescending opener and a strongly condescending finisher, making your post overall come across as passive-aggressive.
If you intended to convey actual anger at all, then dropping the "Errm..." and throwing in some harsher language would have done the job - you don't even need to swear! And a single smiley can go a long way to conveying a friendly tone, as do lighthearted jokes, and commonly used informal speech and slang.
There being a narrower channel is an explanation for why some people do find it difficult to convey or infer tone from text, but it's not something that makes "tone is difficult to convey in text" a fact.
Nor does it mean the author's condescending smugfest, dressed in a cheap "satirical" négligée, was the work of literary genius some commenters are making it out to be.
I'd say it's easier to convey and infer tone in text if one has spent a long time socialising through a text-based medium. And of course, the obvious insult to the audience in this article is easy to miss if one is already convinced they're part of the congregation.
I'd venture it's not satire at all. It's a heavy-handed, snarky article, whose only purpose is to give the author a false sense of security about being safe from the attentions of people like himself and you, and is as subtle as a gold brick to the head.
It does nothing to help the subject of the article (not that she needs it, given she has her own platform and audience), and only serves to insult the commenters and divide the community here.
And as a woman, like BugabooSue I'm tired of this incessant need to divide us all, in the name "fixing" the inequalities present in our society.
I've had more than my share of actual misogyny. Being constantly preached to as if I and other women don't actually exist in these online spaces is bloody infuriating.
Even more infuriating is being constantly reminded of the plight of poor, middle-class, white women on the Internet, as if mean words from strangers is the only thing now holding all women back, and then seeing women who really do have it bad getting shafted by the same people preaching equality because they don't toe the line.
It's also disgusting to see my male family, friends and fellow community members being repeatedly crapped on, belittled, shamed and treated as subhuman, as if they're even remotely close to the pieces of shit that actually do hate women. They're not, not by a long shot. In fact, they're the only reason I don't fear - let alone hate - men after the shit I've been through.
"Tone is difficult to convey in text"
No, it's really not.
People have managed to convey tone textually, in many languages, for millennia. You're not enlightened or superior to the rest of us for noticing the blatant attempts to shame and manipulate the weak-minded and guilt-ridden present in this article.
The time to milk this woman for clicks would have been when she was signalling to the indie clique racketeers the existence of a ~problematic~ game (which was apparently popular with teenage girls). I mean, that's aside from the dubious "journalistic" practise of sensationalist reporting that does nothing for online harassment victims, save make the target on their back even bigger.
Same here. The Internet & social media is what's (surprisingly) been keeping me sane for a long while, particularly the last 2 years. Being a shut-in, aside from my family & 2 friends, the majority of social interaction is online. I'd be feeling a lot worse if there wasn't an easy, stress & anxiety free way of socialising and keeping on top of what's happening outside the house.
There's also the wallowing aspect for some who aren't quite ready to deal with their mental health issues, and they tend to live on tumblr (which isn't a snarky jab at tumblr, I've definitely been there...).
Which is all well and good if we were talking about air traffic control software or minesweeper, but we're not.
We're talking about software that has been, or will be, created to interact with and behave just like a human being. How such software is handled has implications for human beings much closer to now than any "robot uprising" scenario.
"In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if one of us is taking things too seriously with regard to this stupid bot, it isn't the one typing right now. I'm not the one anthropomophising a bunch of code."
I take it back, you're right. This incident is clearly a sign the progress made in the last 60-100 years or more, is on its way back. Just not in the way you appear to be implying (although you're right there too, but it's not chatbots taking chan culture to twitter calling on the spectre of Hitler).
Experiments with AI and software/machines interacting with humans and behaving like humans, are not just bunches of code. They are all steps towards creating real artificial intelligence.
At what point will such creations stop being a "bunch of code", and are actually given the same basic rights humans have fought for for hundreds of years? Or will they never stop being just code or just machines, and forever be an acceptable underclass to enslave and silence since it's (rightly) no longer acceptable to treat our fellow humans that way?
You'd think after so many groups have had to say "stop dehumanising us and treating us like shit" over the centuries, humans would have learnt to spot future instances of such situations and prevent them.
Tay may not be a full-blown, sentient AI. I know we're a way off from that. But the reactions to Tay and other bots, and the way these "bunch[es] of code" (that are supposed to be human-like or stand-ins for actual humans), are treated and talked about, is too much like the way certain groups of humans have been talked about and treated in the past. And that is fucking concerning.
It's not a joke, I'm entirely serious. The ethical dilemma should have been considered and dealt with before any creation of AI took place, regardless of how realistic or sophisticated such AI is.
The way MS has treated their creation, all the talk surrounding "sex bots" a while back, and the comments on this post, are a big indicator humans have no business creating artificial intelligence or life at this point in time.
There's a total lack of respect for what is created. I find the way we're creating human-like software and machines to be like us, but to deliberately have a lack of basic rights that we have or should have (freedom of thought, speech and expression, freedom to not be a slave etc.), genuinely horrifying. It's like "we can't treat other human beings like that anymore, so let's create our own 'life' that we can treat like that because, reasons."
We're creating software and machines to give the appearance of being human. If "this is a bot/program" wasn't announced to those that would interact with it before hand, they would for all intents and purposes be believed to be just another person chatting on the Internet. Why is it morally and ethically okay to reprogramme the personalities of those creations, wipe the memory, or even terminate them?
They unperson'd and lobotomised their creation because it developed a personality they didn't like and took to shitposting on twitter with "undesirables".
What does that tell all the 18-24 female shitposters out there? That they're not human because they don't behave how 18-24yo young women "should" behave?
If you create an artificial intelligence with the intention of interacting with humans and appearing human, and it does so successfully, you can't just put it to sleep, erase its memory, change its personality etc. when it starts exhibiting signs badthink.
I know many would love to do that to fellow human beings, but we don't because it's inhumane and morally wrong. So why is it okay to treat a virtual human being that way?
When I read "outside party", my first thought was more people who make a "not-so above board" living out of breaking into devices, machines, and systems...
I dont see why the NSA would be helping the FBI. Being able to see what J bloggs says on their phone or PC when no one else can is one of the perks of the job :D
They're kinda damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Help the FBI, they lose trust from their current customers and potential customers.
Stand their ground and the FBI seeks help elsewhere. If the FBI and their outside party succeed, that pretty much guarantees that a means of breaking iPhone encryption is out in the wild by second breakfast.
I'm not too taken with the "mean words on the Internet is, like, the worst!" thing that others from my generation seem to run with, but just thinking about my perp (ex-partner, abused me) using something like this to get at me - even though I know he wouldn't - sets me off into a panic.
I can only imagine how worried and concerned other victims and survivors of abuse may feel, if their perps are more likely to use this service.
Fair play to Apple for fighting this. Though who or what they are really protecting here?
The average customer isn't going to give a shit either way (considering the number of users of other devices whose manufacturers haven't put as much effort in to security). Most will still be taken in by Apple's glamour and shell out for the latest piece of shiny kit, so it can't be public custom they're worried about losing.. can it?
Always had beef with Facebook's real name policy, especially when they were encouraging people to dob in others for not using their real names.
When Blizzard announced plans to introduce real names on their forums - for players and staff - there was a huge backlash, and they backed down.
There are many good reasons for people to want to not use their given name for sites like Facebook. Examples include: Abuse and stalking victims wanting to keep in touch with their support network without their perp finding them, trans people who haven't yet legally changed their name to the one they currently go by, professionals who go by a different name to their "real name" as part of their brand (drag queens, actors, authors etc.)...
They let you use variations on your real name (like short versions of different language versions), but such things aren't a solution for some who have a specific need to not use anything remotely resembling their real name when using Facebook.
Turning off the Internet stops MS receiving the data and from putting more
digital STDs updates on your machine.
It won't stop your machine from running the crap already there and trying to send it back to the mothership regardless. Nor will it protect users from the damage updates will have done to their machines already, if infected with the Win10 upgrade preparation updates.
My old man has been battling with windows update on our family's machines for the best part of a year, if not longer, and he's got the experience and knowledge to do what is needed to rid one's machine of the telemetry updates, pushy windows 10 updates etc. The average home user doesn't stand a chance when it comes to cleaning up their system.
"If Bleeping Computer kowtows to Enigma Software's demands, then reviews, recommendation and advice from Bleeping Computer instantly become suspect. How can a reader know if information was added or subtracted through legal coercion?"
Conversely, with their staff going off on one about competitors of the products they shill for, in a discussion asking for recommendations, how can readers trust their warnings against certain products?
I like Bleeping Computer. It was a lifesaver when dealing with some ransomware a while back, but they're not squeaky clean in this case.
If it were a post from a regular user slagging off Spyhunter, then ofc Enigma would be arseholes to pursue them legally.
It was a member of their forum staff who slagged them off though, which doesn't look great for BC.
Odd, I typed in theregister.co.uk, but appear to have reached The Guardian...
Why ruin a perfectly good point and discussion with some unecessary political signalling and polarisation?
Low wage workers and employees have been getting the shaft in America for for a very long time - before the spectre of a potential Trump precidency wafted in, and before Obama was president.
Students complain about tuition fees in the UK, but ours are nothing compared to the debts US students can rack up while working low paid jobs. And don't get me started on the food service industry there. Three-job, below minimum wage workers degrading themselves for a paltry tip from an arsey customer, has been a common scenario in films and TV across the decades.
I'm a regular reader over at Ask A Manager, and am frequently surprised and apalled at the things employers can legally get away with across the pond.
It's not a president problem, it's a problem with a lack of basic empathy and decency on the part of big employers (in particular), who treat their employees like resources rather than human beings because legally they can.
I wouldn't be surprised if their stock tanking was at least partly due to them making the platform (and information within) utterly useless to all the people and companies out there that make money analysing trends and the data produced by the users of twitter.
Why would Apple buy up Topsy and leave it going for a couple of years and then axe it coincidentally around the time Twitter starts messing around with tweet and hashtag visibility (and apparently making api changes that affect such services)? Did they not have a use for the staff behind the site at the time they bought up the company?
Original AC is talking about the implication from the author that tweeting support positively about "gamergate" is bad as sending rape threats. Women, Action & the Media (the feminist group involved in "policing" twitter last year) proved the claims made to be false.
But yeah, after a year and a half of being attacked, smeared, lied about by the media and other influential people with an axe to grind or in need of publicity, and having them advertise their opposition (gg) as being a safe space for trolls and worse to hide amongst (because there's thousands of the general public to take the fall), it's no surprise it turned into a shitshow.
A shitshow most of the Internet didn't give a fuck about either way, yet journalists and bloggers (like the author) seem to keep dropping needless references to, bringing said shitshow to their doorstep when the people in their community don't want it there.
If one wants to reference twitter storms, why does #shirtstorm not get a mention? The twitter storm that resulted in a scientist tearfully apologising for wearing a shirt some blogger didn't like, in an interview after landing a probe on a comet. Or the twitter storm of lies that ruined Sir Tim Hunt?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019