This is what came from a hosting company called SecuredServers when we inquired about DDOS protection.
Our security stems from the fact that your servers are hosted in a secured facility, with limited building access. Further the the section of the building that hosts your server is an employee only area. No clients are allowed in this area.
Yale is locked down after an anonymous phone call.
News agencies are reporting that witnesses have seen a gunman on campus, but nearly all leave out the fact that none of the witness accounts matched.
Somebody called from a payphone for a few seconds to 911 and reported that his roommate was headed to campus to shoot people. No shots have been fired. The campus has been locked down for 3 hours by SWAT teams who have also blockaded the roads, no doubt outfitted for an active warzone in Afghanistan as they were in Newington when the CCSU trick or treater was terrorizing the populace.
Out of "an abundance of caution", campus and local police will be conducting a room by room search, which is about your safety, we swear.
This is what came from a hosting company called SecuredServers when we inquired about DDOS protection.
Our security stems from the fact that your servers are hosted in a secured facility, with limited building access. Further the the section of the building that hosts your server is an employee only area. No clients are allowed in this area.
This is what came from a hosting company called SecuredServers when we inquired about DDOS protection.
Our security stems from the fact that your servers are hosted in a secured facility, with limited building access. Further the the section of the building that hosts your server is an employee only area. No clients are allowed in this area.
I found their name quite ironic after this.
Ask to see their business license. What the fuck?I mean, limiting physical access to your servers *is* an important security policy, one that's often overlooked.
Obviously that won't protect you against a network attack, so if that's their only answer then that's no good.
Yeah, that was all they had to say when one of our team member's asked why he was able to DDOS our server and what made their security good enough for the company to be called SecuredServers.
Arguing with people on the RIT Game Design Facebook page about how female characters in MOBAs are oversexualized. This was posted word for word:
"Additionally, let's look in the past of human sexuality in general, in particular let's take into account the idea of evolution and fitness.
Firstly, women in history have always used their sexuality and attractiveness to increase their status, to get a better life for their children, and to influence emperors of ages past. Being more attractive increases a woman's evolutionary fitness, especially in civilized times, plain and simple. She will have more suitors, give her children a better chance of survival and a better life. Also, having more suitors gives her a chance to find the most fit male to have offspring with.
Secondly, men have always desired power in order to increase THEIR fitness. This power came in many forms, including money, strength, or political. Think about this: An ugly man who has a lot of money can attract women well outside his potential if he just had a moderate amount of money. The politically powerful also attract women, and there are many women attracted to muscular men. Attaining power is a man's method of increasing his evolutionary fitness in the civilized world.
So what do you see today? Women are still purchasing things to make themselves more attractive (pretty clothes, jewelry, make up, etc) to attract more and better potential mates. Men are still going for positions that give power or pay very well to attract better potential mates.
Does it not makes perfect sense that the ideals of both of these evolutionary fitness(es?) would be portrayed in heroes or heroines in these games? Even villains with a lot of power got there because of an instinctual desire to increase THEIR fitness, in one way or another.
In this way, it's not hypersexualization of either gender, but rather a portrayal of what everyone secretly desires to be, regardless of gender. Everyone desires to be supremely attractive, For women, that means looking as beautiful as possible in everyway, and for men that means to be well muscled and looking at ruggedly handsome as possible."
Women are still purchasing things to make themselves more attractive (pretty clothes, jewelry, make up, etc) to attract more and better potential mates.
And so are men.
Men are still going for positions that give power or pay very well to attract better potential mates.
And so are women.
People like the guy who wrote this don't understand... It's not that we don't want sexy women or powerful men. It's that we want sexy women AND men, and we want powerful men AND women.
Yeah. I argued that for a while, but once he used the term "men's rights movement" unironically, I was ready to bale. Then he claimed that "men were the vast majority audience for games," and I brought up that 47% of gamers are women and I abandoned thread.
Not to be a turd or anything, but there are men's rights causes that are perfectly legitimate and OK to discuss "unironically". The idea that a privileged class can't be victimized in specific circumstances needs to die.
That's not what I'm saying. But he brought up maybe one legitimate point about that, and in the middle of a discussion completely unrelated to it. Everything else he mentioned was bullshit and didn't matter to the conversation at end.
Yes, we can be victimized in certain circumstances. A large portion of those are true because of, well, the patriarchy, the same thing that harms women. Men not often getting children in the divorce is because women are viewed as better caretakers, because that is their "traditional gender role," because the patriarchy, because sexism. So, in the end, supporting feminism actually advances some men's rights issues! How about that?
Yeah. I don't deny that men can be marginalized. I often feel very marginalized for a variety of reasons. But I acknowledge that I feel that way, imagine how someone who isn't a straight, white, cisgendered male must feel?
Can we stop using cisgendered? Can we say "traditionally gendered" or something? Cis reeks of queer theory and SJWs. Plus, no one who isn't in queer circles even knows what it is. We do need a term for that, but we need it to be accessible.
Sorry, I've been holding that in for a month or so and needed to let it out.
"Traditionally gendered" means the obverse is non-traditional, which is true in a sense, but is also pretty shitty label to slap on a human in a tough place.
"Reeks of queer theory and SJW" makes you sound like a dick who's like "hey whatever man I mean you guys are okay, I like you, but it's not like you need equality in terms or whatever. Get over it."
"Check your privilege" is counterproductive and needs to die. You can't convert people by alienating them first. "Cisgender" is just phonetically awkward to begin with, nevermind the fact that Greg is absolutely right that nobody outside of a QUILTBAG forum knows what the fuck it even means.
If you want things egalitarian then inclusiveness and understanding ought to be priorities, but for an awful lot of people the priorities seem to be anger and resentment, which while understandable, aren't going to help make any great strides beyond the first few.
It's not that it doesn't sound good, it's because it turns people away. I'm in the assimilation camp of the queer movement, wherein you need to be appealing to the mainstream in order to join it. "Cisgendered" is a term that will scare middle America into not listening to you because they don't understand what it means. If the goal of the movement is for trans* people to be able to be part of the mainstream (and not the other way around), then you need to appeal to them, which the term "cisgendered" doesn't do.
And it's not privileged. Privilege is being paid 20c more than women. Privilege is not needing to take a literacy test to vote. You may have fair qualms with my claim, but find a more legitimate complaint.
Please also note I am a straight, cis, heteronormative-as-fuck white-ass male. I know what cis means, and so would anyone else with three seconds of explanation, and it doesn't have the overt baggage of telling a person their existence is non-traditional.
You're right and you're wrong. People who are similar to you, that is, straight-as-fuck, hetero-normative, but fairly intellectual, academically- and open-minded, would pick it right up.
For the rest it's going to alienate them in 3 seconds because you're labeling them with something they not only don't understand, but that "sounds queer" and that they also don't understand the need for. You're starting in a hole with a term like this.
Comments
News agencies are reporting that witnesses have seen a gunman on campus, but nearly all leave out the fact that none of the witness accounts matched.
Somebody called from a payphone for a few seconds to 911 and reported that his roommate was headed to campus to shoot people. No shots have been fired. The campus has been locked down for 3 hours by SWAT teams who have also blockaded the roads, no doubt outfitted for an active warzone in Afghanistan as they were in Newington when the CCSU trick or treater was terrorizing the populace.
Out of "an abundance of caution", campus and local police will be conducting a room by room search, which is about your safety, we swear.
Spread your cheeks.
Ask to see their business license. What the fuck?
Obviously that won't protect you against a network attack, so if that's their only answer then that's no good.
People like the guy who wrote this don't understand... It's not that we don't want sexy women or powerful men. It's that we want sexy women AND men, and we want powerful men AND women.
Yes, we can be victimized in certain circumstances. A large portion of those are true because of, well, the patriarchy, the same thing that harms women. Men not often getting children in the divorce is because women are viewed as better caretakers, because that is their "traditional gender role," because the patriarchy, because sexism. So, in the end, supporting feminism actually advances some men's rights issues! How about that?
Sorry, I've been holding that in for a month or so and needed to let it out.
"Reeks of queer theory and SJW" makes you sound like a dick who's like "hey whatever man I mean you guys are okay, I like you, but it's not like you need equality in terms or whatever. Get over it."
Deciding the term in use needs changing because you don't think it sounds good is, dare I say, a fairly "privileged" thing to do.
If you want things egalitarian then inclusiveness and understanding ought to be priorities, but for an awful lot of people the priorities seem to be anger and resentment, which while understandable, aren't going to help make any great strides beyond the first few.
And it's not privileged. Privilege is being paid 20c more than women. Privilege is not needing to take a literacy test to vote. You may have fair qualms with my claim, but find a more legitimate complaint. ...aaaand Johndis wins the thread.
Please also note I am a straight, cis, heteronormative-as-fuck white-ass male. I know what cis means, and so would anyone else with three seconds of explanation, and it doesn't have the overt baggage of telling a person their existence is non-traditional.
For the rest it's going to alienate them in 3 seconds because you're labeling them with something they not only don't understand, but that "sounds queer" and that they also don't understand the need for. You're starting in a hole with a term like this.