I remember back in the nineties people would wonder what they would call this decade. We never did find a good name for it, and so therefore we never refer to it
Over here in the UK it's not uncommon to use the term 'noughties'. It makes sense if you think about it.
Also, it sets up the alliteration/rhyme for 'Naughty Noughties' - because we're all so naughty and having sex all the time in this modern world of ours, or so the advertising companies would have you believe.
So the same people that thought that Gamecube was too much like Gaycube (or that it was too much like a little purple block that a child would play with) would be happy with a similar name?
What 'same people'? The only people who made the Gamecube -> Gaycube leap were the Sony/Microsoft fanboys that were never going to buy the system in the first place. The Nintendo fans themselves and the outside observers had no problems with the name 'Gamecube', surely? People didn't find it strange asking for a Gamecube in the games store or discussing it over the phone, but with the Wii these become issues. Any name can be transformed into something negative by the fanboys, but with 'Wii' it's like naming your son Copernicus.
Maybe I'm missing the point. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Bear with me, I'm pretty spaced out at the moment. The grandparent appeared to be saying that if you don't want 'cute' then you must want 'extreme' but I'm saying that it doesn't have to be either, hence the false dichotomy.
Do I like Wii? Sort of, I think Xii ("Zee!") may have worked better for the American market (at the same time could be seen as too much of a Rip-off or XIII or XBox though)
Personally, I don't have any major problem with the name 'Wii' and I wouldn't refrain from buying a console based on the name, I just fear that a lot of people might and that Nintendo could be closing doors. I have no qualms with Nintendo going for the cute, twee angle but there has to be something better out there than weeeee, surely? Xii, as you suggest, is quite cool, and I also like Qii (pronounced 'key'). 'In gaming, enjoyment is Qii'. 'In gaming, innovation is Qii' etc.
The fact is that this is simply unacceptable to much of the gaming population because they wanted something edgier and cooler like "Nintendo Revolution Extreme 1080".
No, they didn't.
What about a regular, non-gimmicky, non-confusing name like the ones given to practically every other Nintendo system? Where would that fit into that false dichotomy of yours?
Man, you've just unleashed a tide of nostalgia by reminding me of Deathtrap Dungeon. I can picture that multi-eyed monster on the cover and the descriptions of foul-smelling corridors and poisonous balls of mould.
Did anybody else ever read the Nintendo Adventure Books? They were quite big back in junior school, I can remember them being featured at a book fair in our assembly hall and we all used to swap them with eachother.
The best thing to do with seasickness is hit the bar and get wasted. You'll still throw up and fail to walk straight, but at least you'll have fun while doing it.
Kidding aside, perhaps VR sickness is less of an issue because it is a negative of seasickness and the brain places less importance on feeling than seeing. If we see that:
Seasickness: Lots of movement but no visuals (while inside) VR sickness: Lots of visuals but no movement
While it's true that the brain 'prefers' all available sensory information to realise what's going on, is it not a reasonable assumption that it may fare better with some deprivations than with others?
For example, what if 30 percent of people got travel sickness, but only 5 percent of people got VR-sickness? Or would the numbers be more closely tied, or even opposite? We all know that some people do get sick from playing FPS games (so its safe to assume that they'd do as bad or worse in VR) but exactly what kind of proportion are they representing?
Is there anybody out there who's never felt sick on a train or boat but couldn't handle a headset VR environment?
All sounds coming from the front of the carrier are intensified, while noise from other directions is dampened. This means that a person speaking to the carrier's face would be clearly heard even in noisy environments.
So it seems that when people want to laugh at the deaf guy with the weird glasses, they have to quite literally go behind his back...
It seems everyone's at it - the first poster in this thread is after a free PSP and there's a guy modded up to +5 further down who's spamming what appears to be a weight loss site outside of his sig (if you check his post history you'll see he's modded up quite regularly). Whatever gets that extra nickel, I guess.
Personally, I find the whole idea kind of pathetic. You can argue all you want about it being harmless but I still cringe when I mouse-over a link and there's a little r=678207 or/bobsbooks/ winking back at me. Just the fact that it's underhanded - 99 percent of people don't say anything about a referral and just sneak in the URL like nothing's up. If someone were to say 'I've included a referral so that I'm rewarded if you buy something' I'd be more inclined to actually follow the link and give them their ten percent or whatever kickback they actually get. If they included two links, one with the cheeky referral and one plain, I'd hit their referral one every time just because they've been so gosh darn honest about it.
I just have to ask, is it worth it? After you've got your five strangers to complete their credit card applications or one month's trial for blockbuster, registered free-ipodz.info as a straight redirect, spent hours getting your Slashdot posts modded up for maximum exposure and that shiny iPod hits your letterbox six months later, do you really feel like you've accomplished something, feel like you've beaten the system?
As for twisting all your posts into some kind of sales-pitch for a book or DVD on Amazon, now that I've never seen before. It's sneaky yet so blatantly obvious at the same time that I don't know whether to laugh at the juvenille tenuous connection from subject to item or cry at the wanton shamelessness of it.
Dude, I'm sorry, but if Slashdotters are asking about the identity of a so-called "Internet celebrity", this claim is extremely dubious
But there's an article on sexual intercourse, isn't there?;)
Extremely dubious?
Every man and his dog on YTMND knows about Peppers because he was a massive fad. Peppers was also on Snopes, so many people there would have come across him. Check the traffic rankings on Alexa if you want, these sites are not small beer by any means. Add in the people circulating the picture/description through e-mail and all of the other sites that feature him and you'll discover that six figures is actually quite a reasonable estimate.
The major benefit of Wikipedia over paper encyclopaedias is that you can include the more obscure and niche information with a more limited appeal than traditional articles. True, you can't turn it into a 'I had a mango for lunch today' blog, but Brian Peppers is way beyond that level of irrelevance, no matter how you spin it. Is keeping Peppers really that much of a big deal? Is anyone being forced to view the article?
What's a few paragraphs and a few links? A couple of kilobytes? I think that's more than worth it considering the volume of people aware of Mr Peppers.
He has achieved notoriety because he ended up being a convenient subject of ridicule. The only way a wikipedia article about him will be used is to subject him to more ridicule.
So you believe the article about Star Wars Kid should be deleted as well? Sorry, just because you're famous for the wrong reasons, be they stupidity, ugliness, crime or whatever, you can't expect special exemption status from information outlets. Or at least that's my opinion.
Making fun of the handicapped is not the role of an encyclopedia, and screaming 'censorship' when that worthless Wikipedia entry was deleted is shameful.
Bollocks. You make it sound as though it's impossible to have an article about someone that's factual and informative just because they have some kind of disability. Oh, and an article about Brian Peppers is definitely not worthless. Whether he wanted it or not, he has achieved widespread Internet notoriety and his name is known by hundreds of thousands of people the world over. Whether he is largely mocked or not is irrelevant, there is still opportunity to present the known facts about him. If Snopes can do it, why not Wikipedia?
Slashdot Mirror
I remember back in the nineties people would wonder what they would call this decade. We never did find a good name for it, and so therefore we never refer to it
Over here in the UK it's not uncommon to use the term 'noughties'. It makes sense if you think about it.
Also, it sets up the alliteration/rhyme for 'Naughty Noughties' - because we're all so naughty and having sex all the time in this modern world of ours, or so the advertising companies would have you believe.
The foreigners are taking our immunity!
So the same people that thought that Gamecube was too much like Gaycube (or that it was too much like a little purple block that a child would play with) would be happy with a similar name?
What 'same people'? The only people who made the Gamecube -> Gaycube leap were the Sony/Microsoft fanboys that were never going to buy the system in the first place. The Nintendo fans themselves and the outside observers had no problems with the name 'Gamecube', surely? People didn't find it strange asking for a Gamecube in the games store or discussing it over the phone, but with the Wii these become issues. Any name can be transformed into something negative by the fanboys, but with 'Wii' it's like naming your son Copernicus.
Maybe I'm missing the point. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Bear with me, I'm pretty spaced out at the moment. The grandparent appeared to be saying that if you don't want 'cute' then you must want 'extreme' but I'm saying that it doesn't have to be either, hence the false dichotomy.
Do I like Wii? Sort of, I think Xii ("Zee!") may have worked better for the American market (at the same time could be seen as too much of a Rip-off or XIII or XBox though)
Personally, I don't have any major problem with the name 'Wii' and I wouldn't refrain from buying a console based on the name, I just fear that a lot of people might and that Nintendo could be closing doors. I have no qualms with Nintendo going for the cute, twee angle but there has to be something better out there than weeeee, surely? Xii, as you suggest, is quite cool, and I also like Qii (pronounced 'key'). 'In gaming, enjoyment is Qii'. 'In gaming, innovation is Qii' etc.
The fact is that this is simply unacceptable to much of the gaming population because they wanted something edgier and cooler like "Nintendo Revolution Extreme 1080".
No, they didn't.
What about a regular, non-gimmicky, non-confusing name like the ones given to practically every other Nintendo system? Where would that fit into that false dichotomy of yours?
Suck what?
Yes Mr Jackson, unfortunately it will.
Sex in the woods with beautiful young women?
GOD, WHY CAN'T THAT BE CHECKED?
Websurfing is ok, but try playing Solitaire and you're screwed.
The guy in question
I'm Gene Simmons, you insensitive clod!
Man, you've just unleashed a tide of nostalgia by reminding me of Deathtrap Dungeon. I can picture that multi-eyed monster on the cover and the descriptions of foul-smelling corridors and poisonous balls of mould.
Did anybody else ever read the Nintendo Adventure Books? They were quite big back in junior school, I can remember them being featured at a book fair in our assembly hall and we all used to swap them with eachother.
Memories...
How about a new finger with an eyeball on it
Dildo Cam!
Really?
The best thing to do with seasickness is hit the bar and get wasted. You'll still throw up and fail to walk straight, but at least you'll have fun while doing it.
Kidding aside, perhaps VR sickness is less of an issue because it is a negative of seasickness and the brain places less importance on feeling than seeing. If we see that:
Seasickness: Lots of movement but no visuals (while inside)
VR sickness: Lots of visuals but no movement
While it's true that the brain 'prefers' all available sensory information to realise what's going on, is it not a reasonable assumption that it may fare better with some deprivations than with others?
For example, what if 30 percent of people got travel sickness, but only 5 percent of people got VR-sickness? Or would the numbers be more closely tied, or even opposite? We all know that some people do get sick from playing FPS games (so its safe to assume that they'd do as bad or worse in VR) but exactly what kind of proportion are they representing?
Is there anybody out there who's never felt sick on a train or boat but couldn't handle a headset VR environment?
Here's a pic of the robot in action
Perhaps the next poll should be 'Favourite TLD?' then?
All sounds coming from the front of the carrier are intensified, while noise from other directions is dampened. This means that a person speaking to the carrier's face would be clearly heard even in noisy environments.
So it seems that when people want to laugh at the deaf guy with the weird glasses, they have to quite literally go behind his back...
Apparently De Beers have their eye on www.car.tel
It seems everyone's at it - the first poster in this thread is after a free PSP and there's a guy modded up to +5 further down who's spamming what appears to be a weight loss site outside of his sig (if you check his post history you'll see he's modded up quite regularly). Whatever gets that extra nickel, I guess.
/bobsbooks/ winking back at me. Just the fact that it's underhanded - 99 percent of people don't say anything about a referral and just sneak in the URL like nothing's up. If someone were to say 'I've included a referral so that I'm rewarded if you buy something' I'd be more inclined to actually follow the link and give them their ten percent or whatever kickback they actually get. If they included two links, one with the cheeky referral and one plain, I'd hit their referral one every time just because they've been so gosh darn honest about it.
Personally, I find the whole idea kind of pathetic. You can argue all you want about it being harmless but I still cringe when I mouse-over a link and there's a little r=678207 or
I just have to ask, is it worth it? After you've got your five strangers to complete their credit card applications or one month's trial for blockbuster, registered free-ipodz.info as a straight redirect, spent hours getting your Slashdot posts modded up for maximum exposure and that shiny iPod hits your letterbox six months later, do you really feel like you've accomplished something, feel like you've beaten the system?
As for twisting all your posts into some kind of sales-pitch for a book or DVD on Amazon, now that I've never seen before. It's sneaky yet so blatantly obvious at the same time that I don't know whether to laugh at the juvenille tenuous connection from subject to item or cry at the wanton shamelessness of it.
Dude, I'm sorry, but if Slashdotters are asking about the identity of a so-called "Internet celebrity", this claim is extremely dubious
;)
But there's an article on sexual intercourse, isn't there?
Extremely dubious?
Every man and his dog on YTMND knows about Peppers because he was a massive fad. Peppers was also on Snopes, so many people there would have come across him. Check the traffic rankings on Alexa if you want, these sites are not small beer by any means. Add in the people circulating the picture/description through e-mail and all of the other sites that feature him and you'll discover that six figures is actually quite a reasonable estimate.
The major benefit of Wikipedia over paper encyclopaedias is that you can include the more obscure and niche information with a more limited appeal than traditional articles. True, you can't turn it into a 'I had a mango for lunch today' blog, but Brian Peppers is way beyond that level of irrelevance, no matter how you spin it. Is keeping Peppers really that much of a big deal? Is anyone being forced to view the article?
What's a few paragraphs and a few links? A couple of kilobytes? I think that's more than worth it considering the volume of people aware of Mr Peppers.
He has achieved notoriety because he ended up being a convenient subject of ridicule. The only way a wikipedia article about him will be used is to subject him to more ridicule.
So you believe the article about Star Wars Kid should be deleted as well? Sorry, just because you're famous for the wrong reasons, be they stupidity, ugliness, crime or whatever, you can't expect special exemption status from information outlets. Or at least that's my opinion.
Making fun of the handicapped is not the role of an encyclopedia, and screaming 'censorship' when that worthless Wikipedia entry was deleted is shameful.
Bollocks. You make it sound as though it's impossible to have an article about someone that's factual and informative just because they have some kind of disability. Oh, and an article about Brian Peppers is definitely not worthless. Whether he wanted it or not, he has achieved widespread Internet notoriety and his name is known by hundreds of thousands of people the world over. Whether he is largely mocked or not is irrelevant, there is still opportunity to present the known facts about him. If Snopes can do it, why not Wikipedia?
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Brings a new meaning to the term 'market penetration'...
Yårrrrrrrr