Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Quboid

Real Name Quboid   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Quboid
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Ein Bürgermeister
Homepage None given.
Signed On Jul 26, 2001, 01:42
Total Comments 5570 (Guru)
User ID 10439
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


News Comments > Defunct Digital Homicide Drops Lawsuit
10. Re: Defunct Digital Homicide Drops Lawsuit Oct 1, 2016, 14:53 Quboid
 
Saboth wrote on Oct 1, 2016, 14:13:
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 1, 2016, 13:21:
This whole situation is terrible. Not that these guys should have succeeded in any lawsuit, but when a company makes a shitty game, it's not a free license to threaten their lives or the lives of their families, etc. even if it is "just on the internet."

The immediate dog pile on 'public' figures has gotten way out of hand the past 5-10 years, it seems.

Let a company making shitty games fail because they make shitty games and no one buys them. End of story. Don't take it upon yourself to harass them off the planet.

I agree. So they made junk games. They got in a tiff with a minor Youtube celebrity, then his fans harassed these guys for years in retaliation, and in return were subject to a frivolous lawsuit doomed to fail. There's no good guys in this story. Simply aholes dogpiling on aholes.

I have to wonder about those people. Not Sterling, who at least sticks to actual facts, but the mob. Who looks at Digital Homicide and thinks "those guys are assholes ... I'd better be even worse!".
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Defunct Digital Homicide Drops Lawsuit
4. Re: Defunct Digital Homicide Drops Lawsuit Oct 1, 2016, 13:04 Quboid
 
Pr()ZaC wrote on Oct 1, 2016, 12:33:
They should Kickstart a new game and fund the lawsuit.

We all knew DH wouldn't succeed.

They're crowd funding their legal action. It's not going well.

https://www.gofundme.com/47uexn9c
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Into the Black
3. Re: Into the Black Sep 29, 2016, 23:42 Quboid
 
Rhialto wrote on Sep 29, 2016, 21:29:
Why the link to Videosift instead of original post on Vimeo?

The videos are found via Videosift so they get credit.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Bethesda.net Mod Comment Moderation
3. Re: Bethesda.net Mod Comment Moderation Sep 28, 2016, 21:45 Quboid
 
This is one way to stop accusations of plagiarism.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
7. Re: Out of the Blue Sep 28, 2016, 16:22 Quboid
 
I take it plenty of people have sent this in?
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/09/28/asa-investigating-no-mans-skys-steam-advertising/

Popcorn
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Examined
86. Re: Star Citizen Examined Sep 27, 2016, 18:25 Quboid
 
descender wrote on Sep 27, 2016, 17:57:
Wow, a reddit post with 6 whole upvotes! This exemplifies your anti-SC brigade in a nutshell.

Reality isn't a popularity contest, Reddit points mean nothing. Is there anything in that post you disagree with?
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Safety Dance
6. Re: Morning Safety Dance Sep 27, 2016, 12:13 Quboid
 
They are referring to online cheating and were making the connection between using hacking software to break the rules and using hacking software to break the law. They worded it badly but not as badly as Motherboard worded their headline.

This comment was edited on Sep 27, 2016, 14:46.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
5. Re: Out of the Blue Sep 27, 2016, 11:56 Quboid
 
I watched The Night Manager. In-depth review: it's very good.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
187. Re: I watched more DOOM videos (not all of them [TL;DW]), with a guy's commentaries, from YouTube... Sep 26, 2016, 23:04 Quboid
 
Initial reaction is that the candidate I like absolutely slaughtered the candidate you like but of course you'll refuse to admit it.

Actual reaction: Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care that the internet never forgets. His tax comment could hurt him and he looked ridiculous about the birther stuff. Clinton was boring, which is probably best for her. She managed to not pass out or have a seizure or whatever. Verdict: nothing will change.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
184. Re: Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated] Sep 26, 2016, 21:54 Quboid
 
I'm following the BBC live blog, they're doing fact checking too.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
182. Re: I watched more DOOM videos (not all of them [TL;DW]), with a guy's commentaries, from YouTube... Sep 26, 2016, 21:48 Quboid
 
Did he admit to not paying any federal tax? Clinton claimed this and he said "that makes me smart".

"Bad people shouldn't have guns"
He is really aiming for the idiot vote, even talking to them like they're 5.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
179. Re: Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated] Sep 26, 2016, 21:27 Quboid
 
Clinton calls out Trump for saying that "climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese".

Trump fires back, "I did not, I do not say that.”

Here's a 2012 tweet where he does in fact say that.
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
175. Re: Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated] Sep 26, 2016, 20:47 Quboid
 
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:49:
Quboid wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:18:
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:09:
Free speech and tolerance are two different things. You brought up free speech. Porn and I said tolerance, which is a liberal byword.

Free speech is the issue at hand. You brought up something irrelevant.

I don't think it's irrelevant, in or out this thread. I think free speech is a non-issue, since as people have pointed out, everything is free speech. There's nothing to argue about there.

But when people throughout the thread have been talking about the hypocrisy of the left, it's been about the tolerance issue. If someone supports an opinion that you don't believe in, are you able to say, that's his right, and move on? Do we want employers to employ litmus tests before hiring to make sure new hires believe the right things and wear the right hats before they're allowed to work there?

Slick and the Infinitely Prolonged can use free speech as a defense, but what's the virtue in going after Oculus? You can argue he's a public face, but I think the thing about "public faces" is that basically anyone can become a public face once the Internet bites down. Yesterday it was Mozilla's CEO. Today's it's a cofounder with extremely vague responsibilities. A few months ago it was some PR employee at Nintendo. Anyone can come under the Internet's scrutiny, which makes them all public faces.

And anyway, that whole argument is kind of saying that you'll use the power of the mob responsibly, only when it's really warranted. Free speech means you have the right to act this way, but it doesn't explain why. The underlying question is, what's good about basing your opinion of a company or its products on the things its employees do? Liberals recognize that as a lousy way to judge a religion or a country, isn't this a similar issue?

Back when this was Luckey's Kickstarter, or before Oculus was bought by Facebook, I could see this as a pragmatic issue. If you donate to his Kickstarter, it might succeed and then he might get rich and donate a tiny percentage of his wealth to Trump. But that ship has sailed.

OK, I think I see what you mean regarding tolerance and why it is relevant. But what you describe ("that's his right, and move on") isn't tolerance, it's more like apathy. I can't be tolerant and inclusive if I see racism and "move on". If I tolerate Muslims and Islamophobes, tolerate LGBT people and homophobes, tolerate black people and the KKK ... well then I just don't stand for anything.

A public face is someone who tries to be public and is supposed to be publicly associated with the company. Random employees happen to work at a company; public faces represent the company.

Also, there is no mob.

I don't intend to avoid Oculus products BTW, I think it's childish and pointless. But I tolerate people's right to.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
169. Re: Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated] Sep 26, 2016, 19:24 Quboid
 
Slick wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:19:
As if he's just a lowly programmer working in the bowels of a machine that isn't HIS COMPANY. Give me a break, you can't be that ignorant.

If Ronald McDonald started farting in every 3rd quarter-pounder, then I'd probably not eat at McDonalds. That's my right, my freedom.

It's Facebook's company, but he is a public face of it. If Ronald McDonald starting farting in burgers then his actions would directly affect you as a customer, that's not comparable.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
167. Re: Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated] Sep 26, 2016, 19:18 Quboid
 
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 19:09:
Free speech and tolerance are two different things. You brought up free speech. Porn and I said tolerance, which is a liberal byword.

Free speech is the issue at hand. You brought up something irrelevant. I think that was Beamer's point.

Their loudest followers want nothing better than to be part of a mob to hound people who believe and act differently than they do

Yes, of course. We're talking about millions of humans, why would you expect otherwise from anyone?
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated]
161. Re: Oculus Facing Political Backlash [Updated] Sep 26, 2016, 18:44 Quboid
 
Conservative hypocrisy over freedom of speech and their attitude that freedom means "everyone is free to do what *I* want" aside, it's not OK for liberals to censor. But this has nothing to do with Luckey, a hypothetical mob is not censorship.

So what's the difference between people criticising Luckey and people criticising athletes who kneel? Criticising the athletes isn't inherently censorship either. I haven't followed that closely but from what I have read, it seems that while Luckey is being criticised for what he is supporting, the athletes are getting criticised merely for supporting something.

(Obviously I think there are huge differences in the merits and importance in each case too but "it's different because it's different" isn't a great answer.)

(PS. "You don't get to" is an antagonising way to argue. Sorry, but someone had to say it and if it was Orogogus he would sound petty.)
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 26, 2016, 17:18 Quboid
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 14:09:
The bill, AB-1687, requires that all sites that have paid subscriptions that allow people to post resumes and other information respect requests to remove information relating to age -- or just not post this information in the first place.

The real push for this is for smaller actors and actresses to not be written off for their age. For actual stars, that cat is long since out of the bag. But if you're a 35 year old waitress who's had 3 roles and obviously no Wikipedia entry, this is a nice way to not get shut down immediately.

I'm not then saying its goods outweigh its bads, just that this is the primary impetus.

So what is the thinking here, a company that sells someone a career-helping service can't post potentially career-harming (edit: due to discrimination) information against that customer's wishes? Why only age, so that's it's manageable at this time?

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2016, 19:29.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Metaverse
47. Re: Sunday Metaverse Sep 26, 2016, 15:33 Quboid
 
Verno wrote on Sep 26, 2016, 14:49:
Choosing between the lesser of two evils is not indicative of a broken system: it's indicative of the democratic system in a big, diverse country working (mostly) as intended. A candidate that gave you everything you wanted, would offer too little to everyone else, and everyone else matters just as much as you. If that compromised choice between far less than ideal candidates is too unappealing, by all means vote your conscious, but don't be surprised that by walking away from an offer to get some of what you want, you end up getting nothing.

Perhaps choosing a third party is the lesser of "two" evils for some voters, I don't make assumptions about peoples reasons. That's why you won't see me saying "vote for X or its a waste". I don't personally vote with a christmas wish list so to speak either but I think your point is well made.

Someone here recently criticised voting for a third party for a reason something like "because what if the opposition wins?". I didn't bother to pick up on it but it struck me that some people (not SMA) really don't get what it means to support a third party. I'm sure most third party voters prefer one of the potential winners over the other but they're both the opposition.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Metaverse
45. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 26, 2016, 14:44 Quboid
 
Your vote isn't just about who you want to win, it's also about what issues you want your country to care about. If you're most interested in breaking up the two-party system, *not* voting for a third party is wasting your vote. Aren't most of your votes pointless in picking the winner anyway due to the electoral college system? If you don't live in a swing state, you might as well vote against the duopoly.

Most of the time when I hear that argument it seems to be from people who just want you to lean towards their candidate of choice.

You make it sound so cynical. People who consider the presidential vote to be important aren't going to think it's important for their candidate of choice to lose.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Sep 26, 2016, 13:12 Quboid
 
Well, this seems like a terrible way to deal with the issue.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5570 Comments. 279 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo