A forum with real-names policy is basically worthless

It wouldn't be worthless, it would have pros and cons like everything else.

Cons: Easier to identify and take action against dissenters (as you stated above).

Pros: Easier to identify astroturfers/shills.

It cuts both ways.

I really worry, long-term, about the "paid/fake poster" problem. Especially as bots/AI will continue to advance, it will only get worse. How long until genuine human commentary on the internet is drowned-out/polluted by "sponsored viewpoints"?

You have it completely backwards. Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows is what CAUSED the anti-trust lawsuits.

The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. --United States v. Microsoft Corp.

And don't forget Metro. What a win that was. Now everybody calls it "that stupid Windows 8 touch UI that used to be called Metro".

I seem to be immune. I happily played Half-Life Source for over an hour and just wanted more.

I think the Rift will be best suited to games where you sit in a cockpit. So like racing, space/flight sim, mechwarrior...

Exactly.

How do people sign up for Facebook and Twitter, or practically anything online? By providing your email address as a unique identifier and verifiable communications channel.

It's pretty much the bedrock of online identity.

My friend and I were playing around with his DK2 last night. We fired up Half-Life 2 (and later Half-Life 1 Source).

That big room with all the crates hanging from the ceiling that you have to jump your way across? That was just about the most intense gaming experience I've ever had. The vertigo feels completely real and you feel actual panic if you fall.

My friend fell down that elevator shaft in "Unforseen Consequences" and his brain just about melted. An hour later, his real-world balance was still fucked up and he had to go to bed.

They need higher-res, but other than that the illusion is pretty damn convincing. You completely forget that the screen is redrawing itself based on your head movements... it just feels like you're looking around inside a virtual space. (To the point that when the head-tracking effect pauses, like on loading screens, it feels BIZARRE)

You know I'm not a fan of abandoning anonymity, but I think there is a place online for "verified identify" for certain venues.

Wouldn't it be nice if say, when visiting say an online newspaper's comments section, you had a choice between "Verified posters discussion" and "Anonymous free-for-all"?

I think anonymous speech should always be a protected form of expression, but it cuts both ways. It's becoming (or became a long time ago) a real issue with paid astroturfers/shills polluting online discourse, but right now there is simply no way to to be sure.

It's an abbreviation, for fuck's sake.

And the full domain [wikipedia.org] is clearly displayed next to the actual link, so... seriously? Do you think anybody was actually confused about what I was linking to?

Oh lighten the fuck up, we are laughing at some clever wordplay, not because we think child abuse is funny.

No, that is not that you've been saying in this thread. Not at all.

Your previous post literally starts "There's no 'probably' about it", goes on to talk about understanding "what is and isn't possible", and ends with "you have to be able to pick the possible from the impossible".

Now you say, "Like I said, exceedingly unlikely"? Give me a break.

And if you have a "better bet" than something replicated by 3 independent teams, I'm sure NASA would be all ears. I really don't understand your strenuous objection to more testing to prove/disprove the effect. As I've said multiple times, even if there is a flaw in the testing there is scientific value in understanding failure. But you keep repeating your same argument without actually addressing any of these points, so we will have to agree to disagree.

“Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

- Richard Feynman

But PRESENTATION (how something looks) and BEHAVIOUR (how something acts) are two different things.

Saying "programming machine behaviour... at the presentation level" is a nonsensical statement. HTML/CSS define content & presentation. They do not "program behaviour".

Or as Wiki puts it, "The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions that will automate performing a specific task or solve a given problem". HTML & CSS simply do not qualify. They are certainly computer languages, but they are not computer programming languages.

And for fuck's sake, having a clear definition of what "programming" means is not about "bragging rights".

They thought they weren't getting a Season 5, which is why they rushed to resolve all the major plots by the end of S4, leading to a rather underwhelming S5.

So what you say is true, but not really their fault.

B5 was full of lighthearted moments and humour (admittedly less so towards the end). Thinking about Londo going "but in purple... I'm STUNNING" still cracks me up just thinking about it. Or G'Kar getting drunk with the grail seeker "They made a very satisfying.. THUMP when they hit the ground". Lennier and Vir commiserating, "they never listen...". Or Sheridan's terrible jokes.. "Kosh who?" / "Gseundheit!". I could go on all day. :)

Sure there was a serious, epic plot underlying it all.. but you can say the same thing about Guardians. I mean, let's not forget that Ronan's goal was to murder billions of innocent people.

This (appears to) fly in the face of accepted theory, which means it is probably the result of an error somewhere. Everybody realizes this!

However, taking that "probably" and stating it as "definitely" does not make you wise, or a "true skeptic". It makes you dogmatic. And that is not the scientific method.

That is why you are "wrong", even if the effect turns out to be a mistake. This perhaps explains the lack of kudos you've received in the past.