Feminism loses out again?

XYZ Computing is carrying a story on how Agetec is making a stand against the objectification of women as “booth babes” at this year’s E3.

I think this is an admirable motion and I’m really looking forward to at least one company at E3 not plastering their booth with half-naked women extolling the virtues of the companies latest sexually-charged… golf game. Oh wait, quite a few companies don’t use booth “babes”. In fact, I think Nintendo make a point of dressing their staff in fairly conservative clothes (knee-length shorts and polo shirts) pretty much every year.

The problem seems to be that merely passively not objectifying women doesn’t make headlines. No, you need to hire “unattractive women” and hand out “granny’s panties” with your logo on them. At least that’s the impression I got from the slashdot post before I read the actual article it refers to which no mention of looking for particular unattractive women, just “real people who enjoy video games.”

Now I’m a little confused. Should I be mad at AgeTec because of the “granny’s panties” thing (or is that just bad taste)? Should I be mad at the Slashdot poster who translates “real people” to “unattractive women” (talk about setting high standards!)? Or should I be happy that there is at least some form of backlash against half-naked women selling me golf games?

The transformation of J Allard

This is an interesting article on the transformation of J Allard. He certainly looks different and gives hope to geeks everywhere. I think that the tone of the article was a bit harsh. I don’t see anything wrong with someone wanting to change their “look” if it makes them happy or helps their career. (Not that they should have to!)

For more high-resolution, back-lit J Allard goodness download the .tiff file from his homepage. It’ looks perfect for framing.

Commercial use of blogs

I was watching Media Watch yesterday and saw a blurb with Rupert Murdoch talking about how Fox may consider using blogs to supplement their news coverage. I don’t know if he was talking about using blog feeds or actually hiring bloggers to post specifically for Fox.

However, this got me thinking about blogs: who owns the information and who can reproduce it? I hate the idea of large media companies charging subscriptions for their content and then supplementing their coverage with other people’s blogs. Is it possible to have an content license in which commercial use of your blog requires payment? Talking a page out of “their” book, it could just be an unnoticable micropayment. 🙂

I think that it’s a good idea to have a license declaration on this website. I would personally lean toward the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license. What about everyone else?