telomerase is an enzyme that adds a tail to the end of the DNA strand during replication. this tail is folded over to form a primer for the lagging strand and eventually clipped. without the tail, about 100 base pairs of gene will be folded over instead every time replication occurs. the loss of this DNA during every replication is why we age.
telomerase is switched off in normal somatic cells. however, in cancer cells it is switched on (cancer cells are essentially immortal). the only place where telomerase is needed is in the germ line cells, which is why this treatment may have the side effect of infertility.
1) i've read intellectual impostures cover to cover.
2) i'm fully aware that sokal and bricmont's criticism is limited strictly to the abuse of scientific concepts. however, as dawkins pointed out, when someone gets caught commiting intellectual fraud, they've blown their credentials when it comes to things i don't know anything about.
3) this has everything to do with NGJ, as I pointed out in the original post that spawned this thread. i will likewise refer you to this post. i've already explained how i'm using the term postmodernism to stand for larger problems in the humanities.
4) i never asked for research in cultural studies to be halted because of a few unscrupulous "theorists". when scientists, like this guy, get caught faking it, the whole of their work gets reexamined and much, if not all of it, gets thrown out.
1) this i will skip, since it's just an introduction to point #2
2) this is exactly what pisses me off about postmodernism. the whole philosophy has been intentionally ill-defined and muddled-up so thorough so as to facilitate exactly the type of counterattack you just made. even the thinkers most associated with postmodernism will, when backed into a corner, deny any label or allegiance to any movement. if you really worked on derrida, you could probably get him to deny being a deconstructionist.
these frauds i've chosen to call postmodernists, and i make no apologies for my sloppy use of the term. there is no other way to employ a word that is devoid of any clear meaning. i'm hardly alone in my use of the term to describe these people. you'll notice that dawkins titled his essay "postmodernism disrobed" and not "intellectual frauds who inhabit the field of cultural studies disrobed". since dawkins and i are scientists and therefore accustomed to clearly-defined vocabulary, we've imposed our own meaning on the term. we needed a term for what we're attacking, and "postmodernism" was the best candidate, even though, as you point out, our targets don't hold identical beliefs.
3) i'm not really sure what you're saying here, but i'm glad that you understand that "theory" is a debased term.
4) the cultural fault line is between hippies and anti-hippies.
i've been a hardcore tribes fan since the beginning, and in my opinion tribes 3 is the best tribes yet, as well as one of the most underappreciated games of all time. everybody hears that sales have been crappy and assume that it sucks, but that's not the case at all. tribes 3 definitely is a departure from earlier tribes games, but most of the changes are for the better.
--learning to ski is much simpler and more refined. --the single player game gives noobs a chance to practice their skills before they get thrown into the multiplayer melee. --the grappler kicks all kinds of ass. --the number of deployables is strictly limited (no more turret spamming) --mines only detonate when enemies step on them --in general, the whole game has been streamlined and stripped of all the baggage in tribes 2.
i strongly encourage all of you to check it out. you can pick it up for $30 or less at your local store.
let me get this straight. you're saying that the reason why no one defended sokal's targets is that the responses were too hard to write. geez, it's only been 7 years. you keep trying to limit this critique to just sokal, but i've clearly pointed out that many other prominent scientists and philosophers think the postmodernists are full of shit. for example, when jacques derrida was awarded an honorary phD from cambridge, 20 of the world's most prominent philosophers signed a letter of protest (read about it here)
so not only are their science writings not comprehensible to scientists, but their philosophy is viewed by real philosophers as "tricks and gimmicks." they've been caught red-handed pretending to understand scientific concepts that clearly they do not, and yet they get to keep their jobs. if a scientist got caught pulling this type of shit, he or she would never work again.
i must confess that your attack on scientific methodology left me baffled. i can't even imagine what a system that did not "privilege" knowledge over emotion would look like. if we say that problems which defy mathematical summarization are hard, it's because THEY ARE. you fucking solve the navier-stokes equations, you enlightened prick. i'd love to see you apply your touchy-feely, emotion-privileging theories to the problem of turbulence and produce results that are in any way useful to humankind.
everybody knows that there aren't enough women in the sciences, but blaming scientific methodology itself is absurd. that's like blaming democracy for the results of the 2004 election. the problem is that our shitty culture tells women to become homemakers instead of scientists, not that science is inherently stacked against women.
you guys didn't come up with your ideas about "critical analysis", and the interpretation of "text" on your own. that had to come from some spongeprofessor tweedpants somewhere. the very idea of interpreting games as you would a work of literature or art smacks of postmodernism, because those fields of study are so thoroughly infested with postmodernist "metawaddle" that it's virtually impossible to apply their methods without contaminating your ideas.
finally, if you guys don't want to be associated with postmodernism, and want to be taken seriously as an academic pursuit, you should stop dropping names like Lacan.
i'm currently reading "a house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science" (1998). which contains essays by the following authors: --paul boghossian, chair of the philosophy at NYU --allan franklin, physicist and participant in philosophy of science program at the university of colorodo --paul gross, molecular biologist at the university of virginia --john huth, physicist at harvard --margaret c. jacob, professor of the history and sociology of science at the university of pennsylvania --philip kitcher, professor of philosophy at UC davis --noretta koertge, professor of the history and philosophy of science at indiana university --norman levitt, mathematician at rutgers university --william mckinney, professor of philosophy at southeast missouri university --meera nanda, microbiologist and science studies professor at rensselaer polytechnic institute --william newman, professor of the history and philosophy of science at indiana university --cassandra pinnick, professor of philosphy at western kentucky university --michael ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the university of guelph --alan soble, professor of philosophy at the university of new orleans --philip sullivan, professor of aerospace engineering at the university of toronto
sokal is hardly alone in thinking these postmodernists are a bunch of con artists (at least when it comes to simulating an understanding of scientific concepts). you, however, are virtually alone in defending the specific examples cited by sokal in his book. in the wake of sokal's hoax, there were plenty of people who attacked him as "ill read and half-educated", but nobody was willing to step forward and defend any of the passages he cited as abuses of science (and logic, for that matter). i challenge you to produce a single example. if sokal is misunderstanding the postmodernists, why didn't cultural studies professors leap at the chance to correct his thinking.
finally, your comparison of sokal reading postmodernism to philosophers reading physics research is hopelessly flawed. if physicists were producing works on philosophy, you would certainly expect those works to be intelligible to philosophers.
this is where i have to question whether or not you actually read sokal's book, or are condemning it based on secondary source evidence of your own. sokal makes very clear that his criticism is confined to the areas of physics, mathematics, and other scientific areas where he has expertise. he does not criticize derrida's deconstruction of shakespeare, for example.
physicists and mathematicians are two groups of people for which i have tremendous respect. if they can't understand this psychobabble, that's strong evidence that it's not intelligible at all. i've studied physics and math, and i've read lacan, derrida, marx, marcuse, and more postmodernist feminist authors than i care to remember. you can bury your head in the sand and claim that Derrida and Lacan are soooo intelligent that even scientists can't understand them, or you can accept the fact that htis is pseudoscientific bullshit of the first degree.
excellent reconnaissance work! soon i will have acquired the last of the plutonium triggers and the strike can proceed. work on the anti-hippie laser is proceeding as planned. i've recently managed to increase the efficiency of the german death metal core by over 30%. preliminary tests have already shown it to be highly effective on berets and thick-rimmed emo glasses.
postmodernism is the philosophy that produced the professors who educated/indoctrinated the New Games Journalists. it is a philosophy championed by some of the greatest intellectual frauds in history -- evil geniuses who conjured up an entire school of thought with smoke and mirrors. they attracted legions of followers (your professors) and became revered thinkers. then a physicist by the name of Alan Sokal came along and gave these impostors one of the biggest intellectual beatdowns of all time. you can read about it here.
once upon a time, i was a young and impressionable intellectual. i had professors that dazzled me with fancy vocabulary and talk of "critical analysis" and "theory". it's hard to unplug yourself from their matrix, but it can be done.
now i walk around my university like a bad ass. i look straight at former professors as they walk by, sheepishly avoiding eye contact with me. they're TERRIFIED of me, because i'm a walking indictment of their life's work. when they sleep, they have nightmares about me humiliating them in front of their students. don't believe me? mention Sokal's name to your lit professors sometime and see what happens.
oh, wow. you're deep into it, aren't you? well, if sokal's book didn't convince you then i'm wasting my time trying to unplug you from the postmodernist matrix. there is a critical point in the development of every academic where so much time and energy has been invested in a particular subject that it becomes impossible to let go of what has been "learned", even when the subject has been shown incontrovertibly to be bullshit. look at how marxism endures to this very day, despite fundamental flaws in marx's understanding of economics (*cough* problem of transformation *cough*) and overwhelming empirical evidence that marxism leads to mass human suffering.
sokal presents example after example of just NAKED intellectual fraud, and if you can't see that, then clearly you've crossed the threshold.
i wish i could sit down with you for a while and re-teach you all the things you think you know. please, please, please read this short essay by Richard Dawkins.
dude, don't show up late to the debate and start asking why everybody's pissed off. New Games Journalism is a real movement being spread by a small but determined group of emo hippies. they're numbers grow every time they get slashdot recognition, which is why it's on non-retards like myself to stamp-out this little insurgency it brings down the government.
if it were just a bunch of emo hipsters sitting around writing poetry and playing bongo drums all day i would leave them alone, but the SYSTEM that produced these emo hipsters has it's tentacles in practically every major university in the US. it's this system that i'm fighting against, not just the NGJ weiners.
i know you think i'm crazy, but that's because you haven't read this essay by richard dawkins.
if only it were that simple, grasshopper. here is a short list of bullshit intellectual movements that didn't just disappear into the abyss, with tragic consequences:
1) communism 2) postmodernism 3) third wave feminism 4) scientology
yes, i really am comparing New Games Journalism to communism. considering the mass human suffering that resulted from the scourge of communism, don't you just wish that one of Marx's school chums had called him out BEFORE Marxism caught on? well, that's basically what i'm doing, because i am an american hero.
you'd be amazed at the number of wannabe-intellectual weenies that are running around proclaiming themselves the new revolution in games journalism. they call themselves the New Games Journalists (which i assume is patterned after Hunter S. Thompson's "gonzo journalism"). in my nightmares i can see them gathering at a big conference to discuss the dialectics of gaming theory, or some bullshit like that.
Sensible, mature people like you and i have an obligation to stop this nonsense before it gets started. We have to expose and humiliate these frauds before they reach critical mass and become a bona fide movement.
you guys are morons if you think this is intelligent discussion. it's just a bunch of hyperemotional lit majors writing in the most convoluted, self-important, cluttered, and cliched style imaginable. for christ's sake, it takes one of the authors most of a page to explain to readers why they don't truly understand the life-affirming, mind-expanding revalation from God that is Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater, before launching into a description of what the DVD case looks like. truly, that is some penetrating and insightful writing...FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!
these are good stories, NOT good journalism. believe me when i say that we do not want games criticism to fall into the deep intellectual abyss that is literary criticism and art criticism. i love the idea of serious academics taking on games as a medium and publishing their work in prestigous journals, but these New Games Journalism people are NOT those academics (they're not even worthy of the term academic). they are more akin to the stuffy, tweed-clad "theorists" lampooned in such movies as Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester (sucked, by the way).
"Old Games Journalism" is simple, clear, and to-the-point, just like it should be. it serves a purpose. my only problem with the "Old Games Journalists" are the tendencies you mention. i don't know why games journalists have to be such pushovers (for example, cooperating in the hyping of a game that so obviously sucks ass, like Rainbow Six 4), but i guess that's the state of journalism in general these days.
ex-frickin'-actly. this is a bunch of hippie lit majors who think gaming is some sort of spiritual experience. i enjoy inspired pieces of creative writing, but to call this "journalism" is a joke.
they're essentially just writing about their gaming experiences from a first-person perspective, throwing in lots of imaginary detail. no, really. that's it. that's you're revolution in games "journalism".
i miss the days when gaming was the province of computer nerds only. it was a dark day for our hobby when the postmodernists discovered gaming as a medium. i, for one, plan to do my part by trying to kill this silly New Games Journalism faux-revolution before it gets off the ground.
how in god's holy balls did this get modded "funny" and not +1000 troll?
you must have a real axe to grind to turn a post about the spread of WiMax into an opportuntiy for america bashing.
evolutionary biologists have understood sexual reproduction for years. sex increases genetic variation in populations. genetic diversity is important because it helps populations cope with a changing environment.
also, it isn't quite correct to call sex inefficient. in nature, asexually reproducing organisms tend to produce much more offspring than sexually reproducing organisms, which negates somewhat their short term energy savings.
Slashdot Mirror
telomerase is an enzyme that adds a tail to the end of the DNA strand during replication. this tail is folded over to form a primer for the lagging strand and eventually clipped. without the tail, about 100 base pairs of gene will be folded over instead every time replication occurs. the loss of this DNA during every replication is why we age.
telomerase is switched off in normal somatic cells. however, in cancer cells it is switched on (cancer cells are essentially immortal). the only place where telomerase is needed is in the germ line cells, which is why this treatment may have the side effect of infertility.
1) i've read intellectual impostures cover to cover.
2) i'm fully aware that sokal and bricmont's criticism is limited strictly to the abuse of scientific concepts. however, as dawkins pointed out, when someone gets caught commiting intellectual fraud, they've blown their credentials when it comes to things i don't know anything about.
3) this has everything to do with NGJ, as I pointed out in the original post that spawned this thread. i will likewise refer you to this post. i've already explained how i'm using the term postmodernism to stand for larger problems in the humanities.
4) i never asked for research in cultural studies to be halted because of a few unscrupulous "theorists". when scientists, like this guy, get caught faking it, the whole of their work gets reexamined and much, if not all of it, gets thrown out.
all right. here's the point-by-point:
1) this i will skip, since it's just an introduction to point #2
2) this is exactly what pisses me off about postmodernism. the whole philosophy has been intentionally ill-defined and muddled-up so thorough so as to facilitate exactly the type of counterattack you just made. even the thinkers most associated with postmodernism will, when backed into a corner, deny any label or allegiance to any movement. if you really worked on derrida, you could probably get him to deny being a deconstructionist.
these frauds i've chosen to call postmodernists, and i make no apologies for my sloppy use of the term. there is no other way to employ a word that is devoid of any clear meaning. i'm hardly alone in my use of the term to describe these people. you'll notice that dawkins titled his essay "postmodernism disrobed" and not "intellectual frauds who inhabit the field of cultural studies disrobed". since dawkins and i are scientists and therefore accustomed to clearly-defined vocabulary, we've imposed our own meaning on the term. we needed a term for what we're attacking, and "postmodernism" was the best candidate, even though, as you point out, our targets don't hold identical beliefs.
3) i'm not really sure what you're saying here, but i'm glad that you understand that "theory" is a debased term.
4) the cultural fault line is between hippies and anti-hippies.
5) i'm curious, what kind of scientist is kieron?
i've been a hardcore tribes fan since the beginning, and in my opinion tribes 3 is the best tribes yet, as well as one of the most underappreciated games of all time. everybody hears that sales have been crappy and assume that it sucks, but that's not the case at all. tribes 3 definitely is a departure from earlier tribes games, but most of the changes are for the better.
--learning to ski is much simpler and more refined.
--the single player game gives noobs a chance to practice their skills before they get thrown into the multiplayer melee.
--the grappler kicks all kinds of ass.
--the number of deployables is strictly limited (no more turret spamming)
--mines only detonate when enemies step on them
--in general, the whole game has been streamlined and stripped of all the baggage in tribes 2.
i strongly encourage all of you to check it out. you can pick it up for $30 or less at your local store.
let me get this straight. you're saying that the reason why no one defended sokal's targets is that the responses were too hard to write. geez, it's only been 7 years. you keep trying to limit this critique to just sokal, but i've clearly pointed out that many other prominent scientists and philosophers think the postmodernists are full of shit. for example, when jacques derrida was awarded an honorary phD from cambridge, 20 of the world's most prominent philosophers signed a letter of protest (read about it here)
so not only are their science writings not comprehensible to scientists, but their philosophy is viewed by real philosophers as "tricks and gimmicks." they've been caught red-handed pretending to understand scientific concepts that clearly they do not, and yet they get to keep their jobs. if a scientist got caught pulling this type of shit, he or she would never work again.
i must confess that your attack on scientific methodology left me baffled. i can't even imagine what a system that did not "privilege" knowledge over emotion would look like. if we say that problems which defy mathematical summarization are hard, it's because THEY ARE. you fucking solve the navier-stokes equations, you enlightened prick. i'd love to see you apply your touchy-feely, emotion-privileging theories to the problem of turbulence and produce results that are in any way useful to humankind.
everybody knows that there aren't enough women in the sciences, but blaming scientific methodology itself is absurd. that's like blaming democracy for the results of the 2004 election. the problem is that our shitty culture tells women to become homemakers instead of scientists, not that science is inherently stacked against women.
you guys didn't come up with your ideas about "critical analysis", and the interpretation of "text" on your own. that had to come from some spongeprofessor tweedpants somewhere. the very idea of interpreting games as you would a work of literature or art smacks of postmodernism, because those fields of study are so thoroughly infested with postmodernist "metawaddle" that it's virtually impossible to apply their methods without contaminating your ideas.
finally, if you guys don't want to be associated with postmodernism, and want to be taken seriously as an academic pursuit, you should stop dropping names like Lacan.
i'm currently reading "a house built on sand: exposing postmodernist myths about science" (1998). which contains essays by the following authors:
--paul boghossian, chair of the philosophy at NYU
--allan franklin, physicist and participant in philosophy of science program at the university of colorodo
--paul gross, molecular biologist at the university of virginia
--john huth, physicist at harvard
--margaret c. jacob, professor of the history and sociology of science at the university of pennsylvania
--philip kitcher, professor of philosophy at UC davis
--noretta koertge, professor of the history and philosophy of science at indiana university
--norman levitt, mathematician at rutgers university
--william mckinney, professor of philosophy at southeast missouri university
--meera nanda, microbiologist and science studies professor at rensselaer polytechnic institute
--william newman, professor of the history and philosophy of science at indiana university
--cassandra pinnick, professor of philosphy at western kentucky university
--michael ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the university of guelph
--alan soble, professor of philosophy at the university of new orleans
--philip sullivan, professor of aerospace engineering at the university of toronto
sokal is hardly alone in thinking these postmodernists are a bunch of con artists (at least when it comes to simulating an understanding of scientific concepts). you, however, are virtually alone in defending the specific examples cited by sokal in his book. in the wake of sokal's hoax, there were plenty of people who attacked him as "ill read and half-educated", but nobody was willing to step forward and defend any of the passages he cited as abuses of science (and logic, for that matter). i challenge you to produce a single example. if sokal is misunderstanding the postmodernists, why didn't cultural studies professors leap at the chance to correct his thinking.
finally, your comparison of sokal reading postmodernism to philosophers reading physics research is hopelessly flawed. if physicists were producing works on philosophy, you would certainly expect those works to be intelligible to philosophers.
this is where i have to question whether or not you actually read sokal's book, or are condemning it based on secondary source evidence of your own. sokal makes very clear that his criticism is confined to the areas of physics, mathematics, and other scientific areas where he has expertise. he does not criticize derrida's deconstruction of shakespeare, for example.
physicists and mathematicians are two groups of people for which i have tremendous respect. if they can't understand this psychobabble, that's strong evidence that it's not intelligible at all. i've studied physics and math, and i've read lacan, derrida, marx, marcuse, and more postmodernist feminist authors than i care to remember. you can bury your head in the sand and claim that Derrida and Lacan are soooo intelligent that even scientists can't understand them, or you can accept the fact that htis is pseudoscientific bullshit of the first degree.
excellent reconnaissance work! soon i will have acquired the last of the plutonium triggers and the strike can proceed. work on the anti-hippie laser is proceeding as planned. i've recently managed to increase the efficiency of the german death metal core by over 30%. preliminary tests have already shown it to be highly effective on berets and thick-rimmed emo glasses.
the revolution is drawing nigh!
postmodernism is the philosophy that produced the professors who educated/indoctrinated the New Games Journalists. it is a philosophy championed by some of the greatest intellectual frauds in history -- evil geniuses who conjured up an entire school of thought with smoke and mirrors. they attracted legions of followers (your professors) and became revered thinkers. then a physicist by the name of Alan Sokal came along and gave these impostors one of the biggest intellectual beatdowns of all time. you can read about it here.
once upon a time, i was a young and impressionable intellectual. i had professors that dazzled me with fancy vocabulary and talk of "critical analysis" and "theory". it's hard to unplug yourself from their matrix, but it can be done.
now i walk around my university like a bad ass. i look straight at former professors as they walk by, sheepishly avoiding eye contact with me. they're TERRIFIED of me, because i'm a walking indictment of their life's work. when they sleep, they have nightmares about me humiliating them in front of their students. don't believe me? mention Sokal's name to your lit professors sometime and see what happens.
oh, wow. you're deep into it, aren't you? well, if sokal's book didn't convince you then i'm wasting my time trying to unplug you from the postmodernist matrix. there is a critical point in the development of every academic where so much time and energy has been invested in a particular subject that it becomes impossible to let go of what has been "learned", even when the subject has been shown incontrovertibly to be bullshit. look at how marxism endures to this very day, despite fundamental flaws in marx's understanding of economics (*cough* problem of transformation *cough*) and overwhelming empirical evidence that marxism leads to mass human suffering.
sokal presents example after example of just NAKED intellectual fraud, and if you can't see that, then clearly you've crossed the threshold.
i wish i could sit down with you for a while and re-teach you all the things you think you know. please, please, please read this short essay by Richard Dawkins.
then join me in fighting the real revolution.
every time someone uses the terms "synergy", "proactive", "dialectical", or "critical analysis", a baby somewhere dies of AIDS.
you just killed a baby.
lick my paranoia.
dude, don't show up late to the debate and start asking why everybody's pissed off. New Games Journalism is a real movement being spread by a small but determined group of emo hippies. they're numbers grow every time they get slashdot recognition, which is why it's on non-retards like myself to stamp-out this little insurgency it brings down the government.
if it were just a bunch of emo hipsters sitting around writing poetry and playing bongo drums all day i would leave them alone, but the SYSTEM that produced these emo hipsters has it's tentacles in practically every major university in the US. it's this system that i'm fighting against, not just the NGJ weiners.
i know you think i'm crazy, but that's because you haven't read this essay by richard dawkins.
if only it were that simple, grasshopper. here is a short list of bullshit intellectual movements that didn't just disappear into the abyss, with tragic consequences:
1) communism
2) postmodernism
3) third wave feminism
4) scientology
yes, i really am comparing New Games Journalism to communism. considering the mass human suffering that resulted from the scourge of communism, don't you just wish that one of Marx's school chums had called him out BEFORE Marxism caught on? well, that's basically what i'm doing, because i am an american hero.
you'd be amazed at the number of wannabe-intellectual weenies that are running around proclaiming themselves the new revolution in games journalism. they call themselves the New Games Journalists (which i assume is patterned after Hunter S. Thompson's "gonzo journalism"). in my nightmares i can see them gathering at a big conference to discuss the dialectics of gaming theory, or some bullshit like that.
Sensible, mature people like you and i have an obligation to stop this nonsense before it gets started. We have to expose and humiliate these frauds before they reach critical mass and become a bona fide movement.
seriously. lick my balls, lit majors.
stay away from my hobby.
you guys are morons if you think this is intelligent discussion. it's just a bunch of hyperemotional lit majors writing in the most convoluted, self-important, cluttered, and cliched style imaginable. for christ's sake, it takes one of the authors most of a page to explain to readers why they don't truly understand the life-affirming, mind-expanding revalation from God that is Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater, before launching into a description of what the DVD case looks like. truly, that is some penetrating and insightful writing...FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!
tell it, brother!
these are good stories, NOT good journalism. believe me when i say that we do not want games criticism to fall into the deep intellectual abyss that is literary criticism and art criticism. i love the idea of serious academics taking on games as a medium and publishing their work in prestigous journals, but these New Games Journalism people are NOT those academics (they're not even worthy of the term academic). they are more akin to the stuffy, tweed-clad "theorists" lampooned in such movies as Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester (sucked, by the way). "Old Games Journalism" is simple, clear, and to-the-point, just like it should be. it serves a purpose. my only problem with the "Old Games Journalists" are the tendencies you mention. i don't know why games journalists have to be such pushovers (for example, cooperating in the hyping of a game that so obviously sucks ass, like Rainbow Six 4), but i guess that's the state of journalism in general these days.
ex-frickin'-actly. this is a bunch of hippie lit majors who think gaming is some sort of spiritual experience. i enjoy inspired pieces of creative writing, but to call this "journalism" is a joke.
they're essentially just writing about their gaming experiences from a first-person perspective, throwing in lots of imaginary detail.
no, really. that's it. that's you're revolution in games "journalism".
i miss the days when gaming was the province of computer nerds only. it was a dark day for our hobby when the postmodernists discovered gaming as a medium. i, for one, plan to do my part by trying to kill this silly New Games Journalism faux-revolution before it gets off the ground.
how in god's holy balls did this get modded "funny" and not +1000 troll? you must have a real axe to grind to turn a post about the spread of WiMax into an opportuntiy for america bashing.
in the p2p age, 3% is a hole big enough to drive a bulldozer through.
evolutionary biologists have understood sexual reproduction for years. sex increases genetic variation in populations. genetic diversity is important because it helps populations cope with a changing environment. also, it isn't quite correct to call sex inefficient. in nature, asexually reproducing organisms tend to produce much more offspring than sexually reproducing organisms, which negates somewhat their short term energy savings.