I'm sure your neighbors appreciate the fact that you're a self absorbed twat.
Obviously it's for publicity, but their claim is clearly tongue in cheek. Let me put it this way. Everyone is taking this way more seriously than Nvidia is.
Anybody that would consider her being a hate-monger is out of touch with reality.
And your credentials are what, exactly?
Congratulations, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on
"They are the only people who would have actually earned it."
Everyone here is dumber for having read that.
It's like there's some strange black hole of information available on the internet that only happens around the super specific topic the Ask Slashdotter is interested in. I'm pretty sure all of these folks are the ones that were our best horses in Keener Bingo:
Ding ding. Fuck, C# is fine and dandy and pretty fucking fast, if your target platforms and related asset and tool ecosystems are cool with it, and you're not boneheaded about what you're doing. Questions like these are so silly - if you do so much homework to know what you know and what you don't know, I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to find the right information, books, etc. What a passive aggressive inquiry. If you're convinced you can write an intelligently framed question with tons of context, then why on earth can you not do a little google mining for books that focus on C# game development? This discipline is hardly a secretive cabal.
Yikes. And you think *he's* dumb?
Ah, your one data point throws off his entire asinine argument! (Seriously, the OP is a moron, but I can't find anywhere in his drivel that he stated only boys can have ADHD.)
Ugh. The only thing worse than lectures are questions from the audience. Well, actually, I have no problems with questions per se, but anybody who interrupts with a question that is going to be answered within the hour as part of the material, or asks a question that was already answered should be subject to some kind of punishment.
Fortunately, those who did use him as an inspiration to get a life/career were also well adjusted enough to have a good laugh.
For all practical purposes, you're probably within 40 feet of a door that can never be opened. Or let's go the other way - hey, given enough time, you could probably find a crane and a wrecking ball, and destroy the building you're sitting in. Therefore, games without fully destructible environments are frustrating to you, because in real life, you can destroy everything? That's a silly line of reasoning. You're marking the line between what is reasonable and unreasonable that is clearly out of whack with the majority of players who accept that some level of suspension of disbelief is required in order to enjoy a video game. Game design conventions and art design directly addresses the concerns you're laying out in the vast majority of games with visual cues as to which objects are interactive and which are not. Anybody can be obstinate about those conventions, but to argue the point without acknowledging that they are a standard part of game and art design is being utterly disingenuous.
The vacuous thing about the slippery slope argument is we can't drag you out in public and have you admit you were wrong a couple of years down the road.
We knew you'd say that.
Which is not at all what the article is saying. It's saying that solitary confinement is being used on many more people than those "some folks." You're not making an argument any more than me saying, "Well, some folks should be killed, so why would we care how many folks are being killed?"