"Modern immersive shooter." Yuck. Immersive doesn't mean realistic or plausible. You can immerse yourself in a marathon session of Pac-Man or chess or be immersed in a stack of paperwork. Immersion just means being deeply involved with something mentally.
Unfortunately, he meaning of the word has been twisted by gamers. What really goes on when someone complains that their precious "sense of immersion" has been ruined in a modern shooter is that they came across something in the game that reminded them they're not actually some unstoppable military badass who auto-heals and never dies. There's barely any challenge at all in those shooters because it's about coddling the 12-year-olds and man-children and making them think they're invincible action heroes, and they complain when the illusion is shattered.
Is anyone else tired of the gaming press obsessing over their beloved immer-shun? They've latched onto this word as a rallying cry when they want to complain about something that reminds them they're not some unstoppable, auto-healing badass. Immersion doesn't mean "realism." It just means you're really absorbed into something. You can be immersed for hours in Tetris, but it doesn't mean you believe you're in a plausible world of randomly falling blocks. Stop whining about your beloved sense of immer-shun.
Thank you for all the helpful citations and examples. Oh, wait, you don't give a single one, you stereotypical, paranoid fruit loop. Did you make physical air quotes with your fingers after typing the word innocence?
And they were totally right to do so. Nobody forced you to use Microsoft products back then, and nobody forces you today. The free market rejected the Windows platform on its own with the rise of Apple and Google.
The truth is that most Slashdotters wanted Microsoft taken down out of some fantasy that it would cause mass adoption of Linux on the desktop. It turned out that the desktop wasn't even going to be the future of computing anyway.
With the rise of Apple and Google signaling Microsoft's natural decline, the Justice Department's actions have turned out to be correct. The free market rejected the monopoly on its own without the need for government intervention like splitting up the company and other ridiculous solutions being thrown around back then.
If the mechanic used the wrong type of oil, you shouldn't spend 18 months presenting your car to the public as being in perfect condition without any review, oversight, or confirmation.
Your example is sidestepping the issue that Daily Kos presented its polls as accurate without verification. The pollster is only being sued because others exposed how flawed the polls are, and now Kos is trying to save face.
But my point is that there aren't equal numbers. Slashdot has always leaned one way--left. In this one case where a left-wing site is the topic of discussion, the accusation is being made that Slashdot is a conservative site.
By the way, the Kos supporters with mod points are out in full force abusing the -1 Overrated moderation.
What an awful comparison. If you were telling a group of people that your car is in perfect condition, then yes, you are to blame for not verifying the claim.
Are you out of your mind? Slashdot is left-leaning on almost every position it reports on, from copyrights to environmentalism. Are you an angry Kos reader who hates seeing this story on the front page or something? Even your own post contradicts your position by stating there haven't been any pro-conservative stories lately.
By the way, your journal is close to psychotic. You take people's sarcastic comments about executing spammers literally and accuse them of supporting state-sponsored murder.
I don't know if you're trolling or what. If not, I suggest you take a deep breath and try to regain some perspective.
PowerLineBlog in particular is pretty well-respected for being rather calm and fair-minded, so I suspect you're just dumping together a bunch of right-wing sites you don't like because...wait for it...you visit left-wing sites. In other words, politics as usual. You don't even give a single example of anything.
There was a study done that showed a certain part of the brain was stimulated when someone was shown political viewpoints that fit their worldview. Interestingly, being given information that countered criticism of that worldview--even when that information was obviously false and the subject knew it--stimulated that same part of the brain. In other words, people are willing to accept any information that "refutes" criticism of their worldview even when their rational side knows it's wrong.
Don't be so political in your life and you'll see the world objectively. I wish Daily Kos supporters would take that advice.
What the hell? Not even a citation or logged-in account, and you get an instant +5.
You're trying to portray Markos as some moral character when he's the one who cheered troop deaths in Iraq, writing "Screw them" on his site before apologizing and editing his post after receiving major criticism. And 18 months before dumping the pollster isn't exactly an immediate response.
This has been debunked countless times. In fact, your own link says there is no evidence that porn contributed at all to the success of VHS:
In researching this article I was unable to find any substantiated evidence that pornography sales significantly influenced the outcome of the war.
Just because you saw a walled-off area in a 1980s video store once doesn't prove anything. Porn was not why VHS won. VHS had longer running times and superior camcorder functionality. It really is that simple.
You don't cite a source for your claim, but if porn had any role in video recording technology, it was because it made porn more private. That doesn't mean it's always been a driver of technology. In fact, porn was behind the curve on HD, and the industry has no answer for do-it-yourself aggregator sites like YouPorn.
People just like the irony of a taboo industry being the constant driver of technology, but the truth is that there is no historical basis for such a claim. To the contrary, the porn industry usually avoids expensive production and instead relies on ultra-cheap commodity technology that's hardly cutting edge. At most, you could say porn is one of many things that drives new forms of distribution, but that just makes it one motivator among many.
The porn industry hasn't led anyone (VHS didn't win because of the porn industry). If anything, they've always been behind the curve. Porn is about quick, ultra-cheap production--sometimes with nothing more than handheld camcorders. The industry held off on going HD for years because it was more expensive and required more work to make the performers not look horrifying.
Not only is the porn industry not some huge driver of technology as is usually claimed, they're actually anti-technology in several ways. For example, they held off on HD for a long time because it made the performers look worse.
Slashdotters just like to trot this meme out because the thought of a taboo industry being the "true" big player pushing technology forward amuses them. It's just not true.
Back in the days of VHS and such naturally there are good examples
The myth that VHS won because of the porn industry has no historical basis. The porn industry is not some huge driver of technology. It's just an ironic claim people like to make because it's amusing.
This is a popular meme with no factual basis. It began with the claim that the porn industry chose VHS over Betamax and that's why Betamax lost, but that is not the reason it lost. People just like to repeat this because it sounds ironic and amusing to explain to people that some taboo industry is the driver of technology, but the truth is that there is no historical basis to make that claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I feel the same way about environmentalism.
"Modern immersive shooter." Yuck. Immersive doesn't mean realistic or plausible. You can immerse yourself in a marathon session of Pac-Man or chess or be immersed in a stack of paperwork. Immersion just means being deeply involved with something mentally.
Unfortunately, he meaning of the word has been twisted by gamers. What really goes on when someone complains that their precious "sense of immersion" has been ruined in a modern shooter is that they came across something in the game that reminded them they're not actually some unstoppable military badass who auto-heals and never dies. There's barely any challenge at all in those shooters because it's about coddling the 12-year-olds and man-children and making them think they're invincible action heroes, and they complain when the illusion is shattered.
Is anyone else tired of the gaming press obsessing over their beloved immer-shun? They've latched onto this word as a rallying cry when they want to complain about something that reminds them they're not some unstoppable, auto-healing badass. Immersion doesn't mean "realism." It just means you're really absorbed into something. You can be immersed for hours in Tetris, but it doesn't mean you believe you're in a plausible world of randomly falling blocks. Stop whining about your beloved sense of immer-shun.
Thank you for all the helpful citations and examples. Oh, wait, you don't give a single one, you stereotypical, paranoid fruit loop. Did you make physical air quotes with your fingers after typing the word innocence?
Are Apple-haters going to pollute every story with this?
How does supporting those features make something a "bloated mess?"
What do you expect? Apple took the wind out of Slashdotters' fantasy of Linux on the desktop supplanting Windows, so there's some bitterness there.
And they were totally right to do so. Nobody forced you to use Microsoft products back then, and nobody forces you today. The free market rejected the Windows platform on its own with the rise of Apple and Google.
The truth is that most Slashdotters wanted Microsoft taken down out of some fantasy that it would cause mass adoption of Linux on the desktop. It turned out that the desktop wasn't even going to be the future of computing anyway.
With the rise of Apple and Google signaling Microsoft's natural decline, the Justice Department's actions have turned out to be correct. The free market rejected the monopoly on its own without the need for government intervention like splitting up the company and other ridiculous solutions being thrown around back then.
Did you forget that Microsoft was found guilty?
Uh, there are tons of examples to the contrary.
If the mechanic used the wrong type of oil, you shouldn't spend 18 months presenting your car to the public as being in perfect condition without any review, oversight, or confirmation.
Your example is sidestepping the issue that Daily Kos presented its polls as accurate without verification. The pollster is only being sued because others exposed how flawed the polls are, and now Kos is trying to save face.
But my point is that there aren't equal numbers. Slashdot has always leaned one way--left. In this one case where a left-wing site is the topic of discussion, the accusation is being made that Slashdot is a conservative site.
By the way, the Kos supporters with mod points are out in full force abusing the -1 Overrated moderation.
What an awful comparison. If you were telling a group of people that your car is in perfect condition, then yes, you are to blame for not verifying the claim.
Are you out of your mind? Slashdot is left-leaning on almost every position it reports on, from copyrights to environmentalism. Are you an angry Kos reader who hates seeing this story on the front page or something? Even your own post contradicts your position by stating there haven't been any pro-conservative stories lately.
By the way, your journal is close to psychotic. You take people's sarcastic comments about executing spammers literally and accuse them of supporting state-sponsored murder.
I don't know if you're trolling or what. If not, I suggest you take a deep breath and try to regain some perspective.
PowerLineBlog in particular is pretty well-respected for being rather calm and fair-minded, so I suspect you're just dumping together a bunch of right-wing sites you don't like because...wait for it...you visit left-wing sites. In other words, politics as usual. You don't even give a single example of anything.
There was a study done that showed a certain part of the brain was stimulated when someone was shown political viewpoints that fit their worldview. Interestingly, being given information that countered criticism of that worldview--even when that information was obviously false and the subject knew it--stimulated that same part of the brain. In other words, people are willing to accept any information that "refutes" criticism of their worldview even when their rational side knows it's wrong.
Don't be so political in your life and you'll see the world objectively. I wish Daily Kos supporters would take that advice.
What the hell? Not even a citation or logged-in account, and you get an instant +5.
You're trying to portray Markos as some moral character when he's the one who cheered troop deaths in Iraq, writing "Screw them" on his site before apologizing and editing his post after receiving major criticism. And 18 months before dumping the pollster isn't exactly an immediate response.
This has been debunked countless times. In fact, your own link says there is no evidence that porn contributed at all to the success of VHS:
Just because you saw a walled-off area in a 1980s video store once doesn't prove anything. Porn was not why VHS won. VHS had longer running times and superior camcorder functionality. It really is that simple.
You don't cite a source for your claim, but if porn had any role in video recording technology, it was because it made porn more private. That doesn't mean it's always been a driver of technology. In fact, porn was behind the curve on HD, and the industry has no answer for do-it-yourself aggregator sites like YouPorn.
People just like the irony of a taboo industry being the constant driver of technology, but the truth is that there is no historical basis for such a claim. To the contrary, the porn industry usually avoids expensive production and instead relies on ultra-cheap commodity technology that's hardly cutting edge. At most, you could say porn is one of many things that drives new forms of distribution, but that just makes it one motivator among many.
The games I play are definitely deeper than FarmVille.
Behold, decades of networking research and painstaking software development has brought us to this moment--watering tomatoes on a website.
The porn industry hasn't led anyone (VHS didn't win because of the porn industry). If anything, they've always been behind the curve. Porn is about quick, ultra-cheap production--sometimes with nothing more than handheld camcorders. The industry held off on going HD for years because it was more expensive and required more work to make the performers not look horrifying.
Not only is the porn industry not some huge driver of technology as is usually claimed, they're actually anti-technology in several ways. For example, they held off on HD for a long time because it made the performers look worse.
Slashdotters just like to trot this meme out because the thought of a taboo industry being the "true" big player pushing technology forward amuses them. It's just not true.
The myth that VHS won because of the porn industry has no historical basis. The porn industry is not some huge driver of technology. It's just an ironic claim people like to make because it's amusing.
This is a popular meme with no factual basis. It began with the claim that the porn industry chose VHS over Betamax and that's why Betamax lost, but that is not the reason it lost. People just like to repeat this because it sounds ironic and amusing to explain to people that some taboo industry is the driver of technology, but the truth is that there is no historical basis to make that claim.