Ok, so you finally convinced me to go to Slashdot settings and penalise all postings by new users with -2. Don't get me wrong, there are some decent posts by new users here now, but overall they seem to be written by idiots who can't spell "ridiculous".
but we need some new ideas and some innovation. Liar. I am sure you don't watch anything but the biggest blockbusters, because you are so stupid. What kind of innovation you want after a 100 year of cinema? And what idea can stay new after it's instantly copied by a dozen other directors? Idiot, just bitching about "lack of innovations" and then bitching about innovations, because you want some other innovations. Moron.
I've got a better and simplier short-term solution for you.
Just sit straight. It's a movie theatre, not a bedroom. And there is no eyestrain, neck-pains, headaches, or a vaguely nauseous disoriented feeling, because to sit with a tilted head for 15 minutes and unsuccessfully try to watch a 3D film you need to be a total moron.
This is great for 10 minutes demo movies, but I think that after 1 hour, a lot of people will leave the theatre with a serious headache.
Slashdot: commenting on shit you don't know shit about.
How about you people just stop trolling and think before posting. Same goes to the mods. Who cares what some retard on Slashdot thinks, when we know the facts. And the facts are that in IMAX theatres people sit for 1-2 hours watching 3D films with polarized glasses and noone "leaves the theatre with a serious headache". This is fucking luddite FUD and I am enraged to see these idiotic ravings modded up.
There are several artistical and technological problems with 3D films which cause the restriction to novelty movies.
There are several artistical and technological opportunities with 3D films which demonstrate the potential of the new medium.
Using CGI you can make the whole scene in focus if necessary. Also, I don't recall the focus being a big problem when watching IMAX films. Yes, it's noticeable sometimes, but hardly a showstopper. The lens effects you are talking about are just new cool things that can be used artistically. Yes, the medium is slightly different, but it doesn't "restrict the 3D to novelty movies".
Technological problems are really minor. Similar problems have been solved millions of times in other industries. As a matter of fact, solutions already exist in the movie industry too, so you aren't justified calling them "unsolved problems".
The IMAX theatre certainly can hold an audience that I would call large, so you are wrong on the first one. Yes, the angle is a bit narrower for 3D, but how is it a problem? The theatre simply sells 10-15% less tickets on 3D movies. Glasses are fine, I haven't seen anyone ever object to that in real life (only on Slashdot). Many glasses can be easily cleaned, often by machine washing. Also, I don't really understand what kind of hygienic problems you are talking about. These are glasses, not headphones or anal probes. You just place them on your nose and behind ears and look through them. Most people are not cleanliness freaks to such an extent as to panic and run away because of that. Also, the glasses are usually barely noticeable and fit over normal glasses easily (which is to be expected since you don't need any kind of focus or something).
So overall you are just a modded up anonymous FUD troll. Now shut up.
Click on a link and copy it out of the adress bar. Do you mean load a new page and copy its address? What if it's not available? What if you suspect it's a trojan (and want to copy the link to your e-mail to tech. support)? What if you need to copy 10 links?
Tell me, how do you know what to look for in help if you don't even know the command exists? Open Help index, click on features. Look through the document, just like you would look through the menu. A nice way to discover the functionality, isn't it?
Yes there is a reason. Discoverability. I should not have to hunt and pick through ever possible object to know what the various functions I have at my fingertips are. Should you be able to? YES. Should it be the only way? NO. All your argument is based on the assumption that the top menu is a logical place to look for functionality, while the context menu is not. Guess what, this assumption is false.
Context menus should be used in specifica cases, when you have several objects and want to perform and action on one of them. Yes, it's possible to replicate the functionality with the menu. But it's faster for the users to open the context menu, it's natural and expected (once they learn what the right click is) and there is no reason why it shouldn't be used.
One may argue that most functionality should also be accessible using a keyboard shortcut, a menu, a voice command, a command line switch, etc., but one thing is clear - there is nothing wrong with making the context menu activated by the right mouse button the primary way of performing an action. It is quick, it is natural and that's enough.
find me the HCI study that proves multibutton mice are more productive in any way. Go ahead, have a look. I'll give you a hint: there aren't any.
You want to know why? Because everyone other than Apple knows that two buttons (and a scrollwheel) is better than one button. It's obvious to every company and OS manufacturer. It's also obvious to all former Windows/Unix users who migrate to Macs, but they can easily get a multi-button mouse elsewhere and it works with OS X just fine.
First time Apple users don't know what they are missing, and Apple was happy to let things stay the same. But now even they had wised up to the obvious fact - multi-button mice are better. This is why they made a 2-button mice. Of course, they had to hide the fact that they have been wrong all the time and to pretend this is a huge innovation, so they are setting things up properly - a Mighty Mouse, a revolution in clicking. Yeah, sure...
If functionality is hidden in context menus it may never be discovered.
Remind me again, how do you copy link addresses in Safari without using right mouse button or command+click?
When you have a number of objects that you want to be able to act on, you either need to focus on them (select) and use the menu, or just right click. Right-clicking, once taught, is much more intuitive, because, unlike with the menus, you don't need to hunt 5-10 lists (and the sublists), you are shown the relevant actions that you can perform on this particular object at this particular moment.
And to discover all possible right-clicking functionality you can read the help. I don't see how looking through all menus is better.
There is no reason why all functions should be discoverable on startup from the menu. If you want to see what's possible to do with an object, right click on it. Sounds extremely straight-forward and logical.
As is usual with MS, their Start page doesn't work in Opera. There are no sections, no search queries produce any results. And opening new pages in the same window is fucking pathetic.
This is an arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't the user be required to use the right mouse button? Is there anything wrong with it? Is it somehow inferior to the left mouse button? The argument about old people doesn't hold water, because computers are designed primarily for young healthy people. The market forces caused manufacturers to remove the third button (originally most mice had 3 buttons), going to the optimal number of 2 buttons and later add a scrollwheel.
Tell me, in windows, how do I create a new folder on the desktop from the desktop?
Click on the desktop, press the Shortcut key (or whatever it's called, the one between Windows key and the right Ctrl).
Or press Ctrl+Esc, press Esc, press Tab two or three times, Press Shift+F10, then use arrows and Enter to choose create new folder. See? You don't even need a mouse or special Windows keys...
This is a lie spread by Apple fanboys to justify a stupid choice by their beloved Steve.
Most (but not all) Windows applications are just as accessible without the right mouse button. When they require right clicking, similar functions in Mac apps probably require Control+clicking as well.
Also the requirement to have all functionality accessible with only one mouse button is bogus. It was made up to justify the button choice post-factum. There is no real reason why the RMB should NOT be used to access some functionality. Why that irrational aversion to the right button? It's there, might as well use it...
It is unusual, but not peculiar. It was popular in the early days of Doom, when people put a little bit more thought into their layouts (and the default one used arrows). I was taught an ASD layout by a good friend of mine - A-left, S-right, D-back - RMB-forward, LMB-shoot. A great layout.
Later on most games started to provide a default WASD layout as well and the majority of gamers adopted that layout without thinking twice. Today it's considered a standard, but it's not actually the best choice...
The great thing about having forward on the mouse is that you can run and even shoot using only one hand. Mouselook allows you to navigate and pressing the RMB allows you to run. The left hand can be choosing weapons or doing something else. Also, of all actions that you can assign to the RMB, running forward is the optimal one. You are going to do it most of the time and it's stupid to waste a finger on your left hand doing that.
Stop spreading misinformation, OK? The month's salary was on the level of 100$ if you convert directly and much higher (at least 500$) if you had used PPP. Hamburgers in McDonalds cost 1-2$.
Gullible people are always lead to believe that something rare must be valuable. That's why Fanta was such a valable drink in my family (you could only buy it in Moscow), even though you could get an equally good bottle of Pepsi in any store. Today nobody gives shit about hamburgers, McDonalds is almost universally derided as it is elsewhere in the world and the most popular and fastest growing fast food chain in my city sells Russian pancakes and salads.
Today, my little lying friend, the average salary in Russia is 200$/month, again, using direct conversion. So please take your lies about hamburgers elsewhere, ok?
The difference in civility is more a difference of perception. The media in the US has a distinctive style of coverage for Russia. Drunk people, babushkas, mobsters, etc. The average American believes what he is shown on TV. You won't find many stories about American mob in the US news (only in TV-shows like Soprano), but it doesn't mean the crime kingpins are less powerful there.
It's an image problem to a very large extent. But, if GTA is any indicator, American criminals are as vicious as their Russian friends.
Of course driving a car is faster. It's because the goverments everywhere feel obligated to spend billions on ever faster highways. If the money was spent on mass transit instead, you would not need roads wider than 2 lanes, the buses will come and go each few minutes and the nearest bus stop will be a few minutes from your home. Look for your local municipal budget, check out how much they spend on roads and mass transit, add private and federal spendings and see the immense difference between costs of cars and mass transit.
The actual data is about 300 thousand executed for political crimes. This is the data which was cross-referenced by tens of professional researchers using different methods to account to every victim. This data is not contested by historians. Only the rabid anti-Soviet attackers talk about 60 million killed, without providing any evidence and while claiming that all those people were killed without any records whatsoever.
Note that the Article 58 (which covered the political crimes) also covered murders, gangsterism and armed robbery, which were considered crimes against the state. Also note that the majority of death sentences were passed during the preparation to the World War 2 and during the war itself, when the state had to rule the nations with an iron fist.
For archiving they need to use eDonkey 2000 protocol. In that case they would simply need to calculate the ed2k hash values and link to those (no seed/tracker needed). Kind of like all the ed2k link portals (such as findhash.com). If they want to avoid dead links, they can run checks of the file's popularity and link only if it's already available on the ed2k network. Surely some of the popular files will be shared by some people.
A great replacement for No3 is the system that was discussed a short time ago - a technology for writing digital information on nails. This makes it possible to use for identification parts of yourself that are naturally replaced.
The Uncanney Valley is a load of bollocks. What I wrote in my original post still stands. * The research was done by ONE researcher. It was not reproduced. * It was done a long time ago, when we could not make reaslistic robot faces at all. * It was done for robots, not for CGI characters * No professional roboticist or CGI artist supports this ridiculous idea. * The whole idea sounds very cool, so luddites repeat it without actually bothering to check out the status.
On the other hand, they gave you a gatling gun with unlimited ammo. But they took the health bonuses from your hideouts.:( Still, the gatling gun pwns.
Far Cry proves that you can build non-linear levels and that script and AI can easily be written to handle that. This looks more like a strange blunder on behalf of some members of the HL2 team, who thought that a Gordon-on-Rails game would be fun and interesting. I am sure they have considered non-linearity and real interactivity (it's what they promised at E3, after all), but in the end they dropped all that. There is a nice video about AI in Half-Life 2 that gives an example of barricades (such as shown in one of the trailers) being impossible. Someone intentionally made it possible for Combine soldiers to go through any barricade. Someone intentionally blocked all exits from the linear path. And they must have had some reason for that, though I'd be damned if I know what it was.
As a matter of fact, there is no growing body of works on the subject. It's just references to the single study by that Japanese researcher, which is not even applicable to CGI characters, because it was done about robots. There is no empirical evidence that realistic CGI (game) models are creepy. Most people enjoyed Polar Express and beside a few smartasses that wanted to seem cool by ditching it, noone talked about zombies. I watched it in IMAX and even though animation is not perfect 100% of the time and there are some moments that weren't as good as the rest, it is in no way "creepy". There was no negative emotion reaction and I haven't heard any viewer comment negatively after the film.
Check out Half-Life 2 renders with realistic lighting. Is there anything creepy?
Of course, PR folks are using this to boast about their product. Half-Life 2 guys did it, Shrek guys did it before. Of course, if you stick a high-poly realistic model in a low-poly rough environment and have it interact with other low-poly models, it will look wrong. Kind of like if you place Alyx from HL2 into the original HL. Also, if you create a great model, but do not do as good a job with animation, it will look wrong again. But what is creapy about it? It's just lack of polish and lack of consistency.
Furthermore, gamers are willing to go very far to suspend disbelief. Anyone, who played GTA knows what I am talking about. Stumps instead of hands, rectangular breasts, models that have 1998 written all other them. The effect is compounded by often realistic rather high-res facial textures, although there is absolutely abismal lighting and they look worse than plastic. Heck, Rockstar even put sex mini-games there with such horrendous models. If people can (and are expected to) handle that, they will handle a-bit-too-realistic Alyx.
All this talk about creepyness is 100% pure refined bullshit.
But it breaks immersion. Your normal real life FOV is huge, compared with that. When you are looking through the small "window" you can't see the world as a whole.
Pretty much all the rest use 320*320 single pixel. It's only the really old stuff that goes double-pixel.
Those applications that use standard GUI elements and standard fonts are scaled gracefully. Double-pixels only appear for custom bitmaps, non-standard drawing, etc. I have a bunch of older applications copied to my Tungsten E2 from Palm IIIxe and besides unpretty black and white icons in the launcher and lack of colour support in the apps themselves, they look just as modern as today's apps.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so you finally convinced me to go to Slashdot settings and penalise all postings by new users with -2. Don't get me wrong, there are some decent posts by new users here now, but overall they seem to be written by idiots who can't spell "ridiculous".
but we need some new ideas and some innovation.
Liar. I am sure you don't watch anything but the biggest blockbusters, because you are so stupid. What kind of innovation you want after a 100 year of cinema? And what idea can stay new after it's instantly copied by a dozen other directors? Idiot, just bitching about "lack of innovations" and then bitching about innovations, because you want some other innovations. Moron.
I've got a better and simplier short-term solution for you.
Just sit straight. It's a movie theatre, not a bedroom. And there is no eyestrain, neck-pains, headaches, or a vaguely nauseous disoriented feeling, because to sit with a tilted head for 15 minutes and unsuccessfully try to watch a 3D film you need to be a total moron.
This is great for 10 minutes demo movies, but I think that after 1 hour, a lot of people will leave the theatre with a serious headache.
Slashdot: commenting on shit you don't know shit about.
How about you people just stop trolling and think before posting. Same goes to the mods. Who cares what some retard on Slashdot thinks, when we know the facts. And the facts are that in IMAX theatres people sit for 1-2 hours watching 3D films with polarized glasses and noone "leaves the theatre with a serious headache". This is fucking luddite FUD and I am enraged to see these idiotic ravings modded up.
There are several artistical and technological problems with 3D films which cause the restriction to novelty movies.
There are several artistical and technological opportunities with 3D films which demonstrate the potential of the new medium.
Using CGI you can make the whole scene in focus if necessary. Also, I don't recall the focus being a big problem when watching IMAX films. Yes, it's noticeable sometimes, but hardly a showstopper. The lens effects you are talking about are just new cool things that can be used artistically. Yes, the medium is slightly different, but it doesn't "restrict the 3D to novelty movies".
Technological problems are really minor. Similar problems have been solved millions of times in other industries. As a matter of fact, solutions already exist in the movie industry too, so you aren't justified calling them "unsolved problems".
The IMAX theatre certainly can hold an audience that I would call large, so you are wrong on the first one. Yes, the angle is a bit narrower for 3D, but how is it a problem? The theatre simply sells 10-15% less tickets on 3D movies. Glasses are fine, I haven't seen anyone ever object to that in real life (only on Slashdot). Many glasses can be easily cleaned, often by machine washing. Also, I don't really understand what kind of hygienic problems you are talking about. These are glasses, not headphones or anal probes. You just place them on your nose and behind ears and look through them. Most people are not cleanliness freaks to such an extent as to panic and run away because of that. Also, the glasses are usually barely noticeable and fit over normal glasses easily (which is to be expected since you don't need any kind of focus or something).
So overall you are just a modded up anonymous FUD troll. Now shut up.
Click on a link and copy it out of the adress bar.
Do you mean load a new page and copy its address? What if it's not available? What if you suspect it's a trojan (and want to copy the link to your e-mail to tech. support)? What if you need to copy 10 links?
Tell me, how do you know what to look for in help if you don't even know the command exists?
Open Help index, click on features. Look through the document, just like you would look through the menu. A nice way to discover the functionality, isn't it?
Yes there is a reason. Discoverability. I should not have to hunt and pick through ever possible object to know what the various functions I have at my fingertips are. Should you be able to? YES. Should it be the only way? NO.
All your argument is based on the assumption that the top menu is a logical place to look for functionality, while the context menu is not. Guess what, this assumption is false.
Context menus should be used in specifica cases, when you have several objects and want to perform and action on one of them. Yes, it's possible to replicate the functionality with the menu. But it's faster for the users to open the context menu, it's natural and expected (once they learn what the right click is) and there is no reason why it shouldn't be used.
One may argue that most functionality should also be accessible using a keyboard shortcut, a menu, a voice command, a command line switch, etc., but one thing is clear - there is nothing wrong with making the context menu activated by the right mouse button the primary way of performing an action. It is quick, it is natural and that's enough.
find me the HCI study that proves multibutton mice are more productive in any way. Go ahead, have a look. I'll give you a hint: there aren't any.
You want to know why? Because everyone other than Apple knows that two buttons (and a scrollwheel) is better than one button. It's obvious to every company and OS manufacturer. It's also obvious to all former Windows/Unix users who migrate to Macs, but they can easily get a multi-button mouse elsewhere and it works with OS X just fine.
First time Apple users don't know what they are missing, and Apple was happy to let things stay the same. But now even they had wised up to the obvious fact - multi-button mice are better. This is why they made a 2-button mice. Of course, they had to hide the fact that they have been wrong all the time and to pretend this is a huge innovation, so they are setting things up properly - a Mighty Mouse, a revolution in clicking. Yeah, sure...
Get Nici. This is an automatic porn downloader that (in the automatic mode) takes into account the ratings you gave to earlier porn.
If functionality is hidden in context menus it may never be discovered.
Remind me again, how do you copy link addresses in Safari without using right mouse button or command+click?
When you have a number of objects that you want to be able to act on, you either need to focus on them (select) and use the menu, or just right click. Right-clicking, once taught, is much more intuitive, because, unlike with the menus, you don't need to hunt 5-10 lists (and the sublists), you are shown the relevant actions that you can perform on this particular object at this particular moment.
And to discover all possible right-clicking functionality you can read the help. I don't see how looking through all menus is better.
There is no reason why all functions should be discoverable on startup from the menu. If you want to see what's possible to do with an object, right click on it. Sounds extremely straight-forward and logical.
As is usual with MS, their Start page doesn't work in Opera. There are no sections, no search queries produce any results. And opening new pages in the same window is fucking pathetic.
This is an arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't the user be required to use the right mouse button? Is there anything wrong with it? Is it somehow inferior to the left mouse button? The argument about old people doesn't hold water, because computers are designed primarily for young healthy people. The market forces caused manufacturers to remove the third button (originally most mice had 3 buttons), going to the optimal number of 2 buttons and later add a scrollwheel.
Tell me, in windows, how do I create a new folder on the desktop from the desktop?
Click on the desktop, press the Shortcut key (or whatever it's called, the one between Windows key and the right Ctrl).
Or press Ctrl+Esc, press Esc, press Tab two or three times, Press Shift+F10, then use arrows and Enter to choose create new folder. See? You don't even need a mouse or special Windows keys...
This is a lie spread by Apple fanboys to justify a stupid choice by their beloved Steve.
Most (but not all) Windows applications are just as accessible without the right mouse button. When they require right clicking, similar functions in Mac apps probably require Control+clicking as well.
Also the requirement to have all functionality accessible with only one mouse button is bogus. It was made up to justify the button choice post-factum. There is no real reason why the RMB should NOT be used to access some functionality. Why that irrational aversion to the right button? It's there, might as well use it...
It is unusual, but not peculiar. It was popular in the early days of Doom, when people put a little bit more thought into their layouts (and the default one used arrows). I was taught an ASD layout by a good friend of mine - A-left, S-right, D-back - RMB-forward, LMB-shoot. A great layout.
Later on most games started to provide a default WASD layout as well and the majority of gamers adopted that layout without thinking twice. Today it's considered a standard, but it's not actually the best choice...
The great thing about having forward on the mouse is that you can run and even shoot using only one hand. Mouselook allows you to navigate and pressing the RMB allows you to run. The left hand can be choosing weapons or doing something else. Also, of all actions that you can assign to the RMB, running forward is the optimal one. You are going to do it most of the time and it's stupid to waste a finger on your left hand doing that.
Stop spreading misinformation, OK? The month's salary was on the level of 100$ if you convert directly and much higher (at least 500$) if you had used PPP. Hamburgers in McDonalds cost 1-2$.
Gullible people are always lead to believe that something rare must be valuable. That's why Fanta was such a valable drink in my family (you could only buy it in Moscow), even though you could get an equally good bottle of Pepsi in any store. Today nobody gives shit about hamburgers, McDonalds is almost universally derided as it is elsewhere in the world and the most popular and fastest growing fast food chain in my city sells Russian pancakes and salads.
Today, my little lying friend, the average salary in Russia is 200$/month, again, using direct conversion. So please take your lies about hamburgers elsewhere, ok?
The difference in civility is more a difference of perception. The media in the US has a distinctive style of coverage for Russia. Drunk people, babushkas, mobsters, etc. The average American believes what he is shown on TV. You won't find many stories about American mob in the US news (only in TV-shows like Soprano), but it doesn't mean the crime kingpins are less powerful there.
It's an image problem to a very large extent. But, if GTA is any indicator, American criminals are as vicious as their Russian friends.
Of course driving a car is faster. It's because the goverments everywhere feel obligated to spend billions on ever faster highways. If the money was spent on mass transit instead, you would not need roads wider than 2 lanes, the buses will come and go each few minutes and the nearest bus stop will be a few minutes from your home. Look for your local municipal budget, check out how much they spend on roads and mass transit, add private and federal spendings and see the immense difference between costs of cars and mass transit.
The actual data is about 300 thousand executed for political crimes. This is the data which was cross-referenced by tens of professional researchers using different methods to account to every victim. This data is not contested by historians. Only the rabid anti-Soviet attackers talk about 60 million killed, without providing any evidence and while claiming that all those people were killed without any records whatsoever.
Note that the Article 58 (which covered the political crimes) also covered murders, gangsterism and armed robbery, which were considered crimes against the state. Also note that the majority of death sentences were passed during the preparation to the World War 2 and during the war itself, when the state had to rule the nations with an iron fist.
For archiving they need to use eDonkey 2000 protocol. In that case they would simply need to calculate the ed2k hash values and link to those (no seed/tracker needed). Kind of like all the ed2k link portals (such as findhash.com). If they want to avoid dead links, they can run checks of the file's popularity and link only if it's already available on the ed2k network. Surely some of the popular files will be shared by some people.
Why not just disable the screensaver and leave a document open?
A great replacement for No3 is the system that was discussed a short time ago - a technology for writing digital information on nails. This makes it possible to use for identification parts of yourself that are naturally replaced.
The Uncanney Valley is a load of bollocks. What I wrote in my original post still stands.
* The research was done by ONE researcher. It was not reproduced.
* It was done a long time ago, when we could not make reaslistic robot faces at all.
* It was done for robots, not for CGI characters
* No professional roboticist or CGI artist supports this ridiculous idea.
* The whole idea sounds very cool, so luddites repeat it without actually bothering to check out the status.
On the other hand, they gave you a gatling gun with unlimited ammo. But they took the health bonuses from your hideouts. :( Still, the gatling gun pwns.
Far Cry proves that you can build non-linear levels and that script and AI can easily be written to handle that. This looks more like a strange blunder on behalf of some members of the HL2 team, who thought that a Gordon-on-Rails game would be fun and interesting. I am sure they have considered non-linearity and real interactivity (it's what they promised at E3, after all), but in the end they dropped all that. There is a nice video about AI in Half-Life 2 that gives an example of barricades (such as shown in one of the trailers) being impossible. Someone intentionally made it possible for Combine soldiers to go through any barricade. Someone intentionally blocked all exits from the linear path. And they must have had some reason for that, though I'd be damned if I know what it was.
As a matter of fact, there is no growing body of works on the subject. It's just references to the single study by that Japanese researcher, which is not even applicable to CGI characters, because it was done about robots. There is no empirical evidence that realistic CGI (game) models are creepy. Most people enjoyed Polar Express and beside a few smartasses that wanted to seem cool by ditching it, noone talked about zombies. I watched it in IMAX and even though animation is not perfect 100% of the time and there are some moments that weren't as good as the rest, it is in no way "creepy". There was no negative emotion reaction and I haven't heard any viewer comment negatively after the film.
Check out Half-Life 2 renders with realistic lighting. Is there anything creepy?
Of course, PR folks are using this to boast about their product. Half-Life 2 guys did it, Shrek guys did it before. Of course, if you stick a high-poly realistic model in a low-poly rough environment and have it interact with other low-poly models, it will look wrong. Kind of like if you place Alyx from HL2 into the original HL. Also, if you create a great model, but do not do as good a job with animation, it will look wrong again. But what is creapy about it? It's just lack of polish and lack of consistency.
Furthermore, gamers are willing to go very far to suspend disbelief. Anyone, who played GTA knows what I am talking about. Stumps instead of hands, rectangular breasts, models that have 1998 written all other them. The effect is compounded by often realistic rather high-res facial textures, although there is absolutely abismal lighting and they look worse than plastic. Heck, Rockstar even put sex mini-games there with such horrendous models. If people can (and are expected to) handle that, they will handle a-bit-too-realistic Alyx.
All this talk about creepyness is 100% pure refined bullshit.
But it breaks immersion. Your normal real life FOV is huge, compared with that. When you are looking through the small "window" you can't see the world as a whole.
Those applications that use standard GUI elements and standard fonts are scaled gracefully. Double-pixels only appear for custom bitmaps, non-standard drawing, etc. I have a bunch of older applications copied to my Tungsten E2 from Palm IIIxe and besides unpretty black and white icons in the launcher and lack of colour support in the apps themselves, they look just as modern as today's apps.