*gasp* finally! thanks! *happy dance*

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
A Bronze Star for you.
Congratulations.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.

Listen, kid (I use the word kid because even though you're probably around 30, but you speak like an ignorant, simple minded, angry child) you wanna try to hide the fact you know nothing about the way the video games industry and the gaming market actually works. It's too obvious.


Alright then, kiddo. How does it work? But first let me tell you that I am talking to you like this BECAUSE you are talking like a kid with no clue at all and just wanting to spew out something. You want to talk seriously, prove first that youre not as extremely ignorant as your posts make you look like.

Indies show its still possible to make good games. Too bad those indies get bought by these big publishers if they do something good. Look at the devs that made Call of Juarez for example, what they turned into. The first part was a real good PC game, the second one was even on the PC version infested with autoaiming and the third part is just lol.

Go ahead and tell me how the gaming market works. Or any market for that matter. Are you one of those hardliner capitalists who dont even understand the system, but want it to stay the way it is, kiddo?
Go troll somewhere else, like on your console forums. Geez...

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".

Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.


Listen, kid (I use the word kid because even though you're probably around 30, but you speak like an ignorant, simple minded, angry child) you wanna try to hide the fact you know nothing about the way the video games industry and the gaming market actually works. It's too obvious.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^Harzzach:
Shooter have NOT evolved. They have devolved into a profit maximized mass product for idiots.
And ...

"Doom/quake/descent/etc appealed to a few thousand PC owners when they were released, the modern-military-competitive-online-multiplayer-first-person-shooters are purchased by millions of console owners on day one."

Lets eat shit. Billions of flies cant be wrong!

Yep, typical gamer comment "I don't like these games, therefore people who do are idiots."
The change of shooters over the years is the very definition of evolution. The games industry is still young and will continue to evolve.
You continue to blindly cling to the past and forget it wasn't all great, there were tons of shit games then as there are now. Only differences, now the industry is so much larger than it was back then, now with so many more games to choose from. Game development is also nothing like it was back then, with player expectations ridiculously high, it costs a lot more, is a lot more difficult, requires many more people and is a lot more risky.
"Maximize profits"? Try "Just trying to not go under".


Youre talking absolute bullshit. Yes, the industry is much larger now. But you simply dont get that thats the problem. In the past tehre were LOTS and LOTS new stuff. Hell, we even had, GASP!, SPACE SIMS!!!!
Sorry, but I seriously cant take you serious. You sound like a troll.

This is gonna be long but please bare with me.

The pressure below the surface of any body of liquid is equal to the density of the liquid multiplied by the depth below the surface, multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. The result is a quantity in pascals, or newtons per meter squared. To this number we add the pressure due to the atmosphere, 101325 pascals; the sum of the two is the pressure experienced by the koi.

The column of water is suspended by virtue of the vacuum that exists at the top of the column, ie. There is no atmospheric pressure pushing down on the column and hence you can 'support' up to 101325 pascals of water pressure within the column before water in the skyscraper would begin to displace water within the pond (this is how simple barometers work). Remember that the pond is under 101325 pascals of pressure, and that as long the pressure within the column is the same as outside there will be no net flow of water. For instance, the maximum possible height of the column would be 10.3 meters (101325/[9.8*1000]).

What all this means is that the water within the column is at a LOWER pressure (and getting increasingly lower towards the top) than the water within the rest of the pond; in a 10.3 meter column the pressure at the top would be 101325 pascals less than at the surface of the pond. So, if a fish looking for food or perhaps increased warmth were to come across the column and swim inside it they would find themselves at a lower pressure than they are designed for. Their air bladders would swell in the decreased pressure, this would in turn lower the density of the fish consequently increasing they're buoyancy forcing them higher into even lower pressure water, eventually trapping them at the top. As more fish find the tower, more fish are forced to the top where they begin to compete for the rapidly dwindling oxygen supply. Furthermore, freshly oxygenated water would not reach the top of the tower as the water flow would be severely limited through such a constriction. In the third clip you can see what MAY be the fish gasping for air.

In conclusion it seems likely that our German friend has succeeded in creating a fascinating death trap for his fish, and I'd bet that he got up the next morning to find that he had killed thousands of dollars worth of koi. This would also explain why we/I have never seen this design before. Of course, I am assuming that the fish lack the necessary muscle power to get themselves out of this situation, which they may well have, but the number of fish so close to one another seems odd to me. I would of thought that if they could easily get out of the column then they would, if simply to find a less crowded location.
Tl;dr IT'S A TRAP

EDIT: I guess I lost that bet as it would seem that the fish do have the necessary oomph to escape. Though I wish no ill will towards our fishy friends I would still be morbidly curious to see the effects of a ten meter tower.

>> ^Payback:

Removing her gasps is like removing swearing from the Sopranos or Pulp Fiction.


Googling this now!

Removing her gasps is like removing swearing from the Sopranos or Pulp Fiction.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^direpickle:
Gasp! He was a crossdresser! What a monster.

Me thinks it was killing mommy and wifey...


Still. It's a funny thing to stick alongside genocide, matricide, general homicide, and the decline of an entire empire.

>> ^direpickle:

Gasp! He was a crossdresser! What a monster.


Me thinks it was killing mommy and wifey...

Gasp! He was a crossdresser! What a monster.

For the first 15 sec. I was ready to call bullshit. But, it's a real chimp!

Easy Cooper, Easy, Don't Bite---AArhghhBlublobbbb...gasp...blub...

@packo

Hold on there, lil fella. Pride isn't merely an emotion. It's a sin. GASP!

A. He's a moderate. He believes in the free market most of the time, and seeks gov't intervention when the market fails. That's truly what the US has been since the 1920s. And no, his answer to everything isn't higher taxes.

B. You mean pure gov't control of all economic resources tends to fail?! EUREKA! Hey, you know what other economic system tends to fail due to human nature? CAPITALISM! Eventually, everyone does what's in their own best interests regardless of others, which destroys the common good, which hurts everyone. You know, like businesses polluting the environment because it's cheaper for them, but hurts everyone. Or ratings agencies, paid by the banks, to rate their crappy derivates as AAA. Or businesses having working conditions so poor that it threatens people's lives because it's cheaper. Or businesses producing crappy goods because it's cheaper to do it that way, to the point they threaten lives. Or...

Guess what that means?

*GASP* Neither ideology is right 100% of the time! Which is EXACTLY why I've slammed you and other ideologues repeatedly.

C. That's not what it ends up being. Most of Western Europe has been fairly socialist for decades. They've never come close to Communism in all that time. It's plain historical fact.

The reality is no major communist country has ever come about gradually. Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, East Germany, Poland, other eastern countries, not a single one was a gradual move from
Socialism to Communism. Not a single one. You're full of crap.

D. It's not semantics. There's a distinction between Socialism and Communism. Period. The two mean different things. And no, just because the state makes decisions about medical care, they don't "own" you. Why medical care? Why is that the determination between communism and capitalism? Ridiculous. And even with the Health Care Reform Bill, the gov't doesn't even have even a majority of the control for what medical care you receive.

E. Russia was also not a truly communist state. It was a communist dictatorship, with a corrupt gov't, which had nothing to do with the fact they were communist. Plenty of "capitalist" gov'ts failed too because of corruption.

I will agree that Communism doesn't tend to work either, but we also learned after 1929 neither does almost complete capitalism. Most Americans did anyway, save a select few like you. And this still isn't an argument against a mixed economy anyway.

F. Oh, hell no. You're not gonna change the subject to Social Security. You keep making Obama wanting to raise taxes a few percent on the rich as if it's a move to pure socialism, and of course, as you so hilariously put it, that might as well be Communism. That doesn't make the US socialist, communist, or any of the sort. Saying that crap is ridiculous. That's my point. You're not gonna dodge this by bringing up Social Security.

I have no faith in my answers because a cursory look at history proves every single one of them. I have facts instead. I don't vehemently argue and insist someone is dead wrong unless what they're saying is utterly absurd.

Upvote for the visceral terror contained within that brief, faint gasp.