Joined Aug 22, 2010 at 10:03PM EDT
Hi I’m Tyler.
I’ve been studying electronics and more recently computer systems for as long as I can remember.
The internet just comes with the territory.
FUN FACT: (because I like fun facts)
On an instruction-based level, there’s nothing a computer can do that a human can’t. It’s just that they’re billions of times faster, and they don’t give you lip about having to add 1+1, 400,000,000 times.
Well, using that same logic then, George Takei thinks that Americans are made of stupid.
Thing is, most of what they talk about being “wrong” with this generation is all subjective. Music is subjective. Movies are subjective. “High culture” is subjective.
You know what’s not subjective? The fact that the teen birth rate in 2012 was at an all time low.
Right. So you don’t have scientific evidence or statistics then.
Ok, that’s all I needed to know.
It’s great because he thinks he can get away with saying this to intel. I mean he’s either ignorant to the fact or he’s trying to lie about the inner workings of programming languages to intel. FUCKING INTEL. YOU SERIOUSLY THINK YOU CAN LIE TO THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE ARCHITECTURE YOUR GODDAMN COMPUTER RUNS UPON?
What is this from? I’ve never seen this before.
Furthermore, the more I delve in to the logic of this, the more it doesn’t make sense:
Porn is essentially artificial orgasm. It’s a method of exciting you (sometimes) without a partner. However, it does this (usually) of a less powerful accord. If men get violent when watching porn, then are you also arguing that they get violent after sex?
And do you have any concrete evidence to back these claims up?
So then what about the converse? Do women watching porn get violent towards men?
I’ve basically come to the conclusion that Social Justice is essentially an attempt at stopping the flow of ideas. The sharing of ideas between cultures is what causes culture to evolve. By drawing lines between what people of certain races, genders, nations, and religions can and can’t do, we’re creating boundaries between these cultures, and therefore segregating them.
In fact, that sounds familiar…people of certain races not being able to do certain things…….hmmmm……oh yeah, Rosa Parks. So, social justice is actual literal racism. That’s great.
(had to add this because I realized it after the fact)
Because nobody, and I mean NOBODY IS APART OF A SINGLE CULTURE. They treat it as though you get one culture you can bind to at birth, and that’s it. But the truth couldn’t be further.
I recently took Anthropology in my school, and in the class they defined culture as essentially the culmination and manifestation of humankind’s knowledge passed down by learning generation after generation. THERE!
Culture is learned. It’s kinda the opposite of instinct. We instinctively breathe. We instinctively eat. We instinctively drink. But creating art, doing science, forming relations, and ultimately doing something that is larger than ourselves, that is culture.
Sorry for the wall of text, my blood is boiling at the moment.
tl;dr the idea of cultural appropriation is complete bullshit.
I have also seen “speaking a foreign language,” so add that to the list.
Are we supposed to all just become recluses and never talk to one another? Also, what constitutes you being apart of a culture? Like, if my dad was born in Italy but he speaks no Italian, is it OK if I speak it? What about my kids? Can they speak it? What about someone whose great-great-great-great-great grandfather was Italian. Can they speak it? What if I have a cousin who is Japanese, but he doesn’t speak it, and he isn’t blood related. Can I speak Japanese?
What if I was born in the United States to two white parents, but then am sent to live the rest of my life with my distantly related spanish cousin in the middle of French Quebec? Can I speak French, or is that racist?
For that matter, what constitutes a culture? Does Detroit have a culture? What about internet culture? Is that a thing? Is family guy being racist towards denizens of the net by using memes on their show?
What I don’t understand is that “social justice” (in the literal meaning, as in, justice for society) is supposed to represent the unification of humankind. If we aren’t allowed to enjoy or even understand other cultures, then how is that unification? In fact, how is that not THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF UNIFICATION?
Kotaku in a nutshell:
>implying that I mean wireless signals
I’m suggesting we use fiber optic connections. Not only are fiber optic connections not susceptible to radio interference and the like, they’re also arguably harder to hack than their copper counterparts because the equipment required to read fiber optic signals is harder to get than normal old copper versions.
Hydrogen Peroxide is an unstable chemical. It wants to liberate the extra oxygen it has and become water. And this does happen to hydrogen peroxide over time, but it’s slow. However, you can introduce a catalyst, such as potassium iodide or dry yeast which speeds up that process several thousand times. If you add soap to the solution before introducing a catalyst, this is the result.
The color change on the other hand is likely a separate chemical reaction, likely one between iodide and starch of some sort.
Yeah my opinion of the game has kinda changed now that my definition of “game” has matured.
It’s a decent story. But to be blunt, it’s a visual novel. I don’t want to go as far as some do and call it a non-game partly because in my eyes, visual novels are the most extreme example of story driven games (emphasis on the “game” part) However, it’s not that good and it’s certainly not “one of the greatest games of all time.”
My response to this is as follows:
When I say cable and phone, I do not mean the services themselves, but the lines which carry them. (Probably should have clarified)
Cable and phone are both services which provide you with a connection. Connections to different things, but a connection nonetheless. We do not need to carry cable over coaxial, we can carry it over the internet. We do not need to carry phone signals over phone lines, we can carry it through the internet.
I’m also not suggesting that we get rid of the appliances which allow us to use those connections. You can keep your TV and still use it to watch stuff, just have the signal which provides you with cable be transmitted over the internet. Same goes for phone.
Honestly, they should just focus everything on upgrading the internet. Why do we need cable? Why do we need phone lines? We don’t. Take all the money you’re using to upkeep the phone and cable, shove it all into upgrading the networking lines, and the provide the latter two through the internet.
Are we seriously gonna do this?
Or, you know. Someone just designed a weird looking M. But the stretch she makes with the 666 in hebrew is more interesting, right?
Only just saw this now, but I have to break it down:
Continuing with the analogy, I in no way condone people “breaking in,” and I in no way think that we should not educate people on why it’s bad and invest in education for preventing it.
However, even if we are to do that (which we should be) the fact of the matter is it still presently happens. And the fact of the matter is that “locks” are a fairly effective and easy measure to prevent “breaking in.” I’m in no way saying that if you are the victim of “breaking in” and you did not use a “lock” that you should be labeled as “asking for it,” and I don’t think that the crime committed unto you should be belittled in any way. But my argument comes down to one simple question: "Could “locks” have prevented the crime from happening?" The answer to that question is “yes.” It is your choice to use “locks” or not. But given the choice, and their fairly low “cost,” I would personally choose to use them because they could prevent the crime from happening to begin with.
This, from a group of people, some of whom take offense to the use of the word “crazy” …..
The hypocrisy is just too much.
I don’t understand where this idea came from that we’re only interested in the gameplay.
My three favorite games are my favorite games because of the stories they weave. (except for the third which is kinda driven by meta-jokes)
The point is, the story of a game which is driven by it’s story is important. But that doesn’t mean that it’s gameplay and mechanics aren’t just as important. Portal for instance would not be as great of a game if it had bugs or did not have as fluid of an engine as it did. And in more extreme cases such as Ride to Hell, (LITERAL RIDE TO HELL AMIRITE?) faulty gameplay and mechanics can entirely destroy a game.
It is true to say that the story is important, and I would even go as far as to say that it’s the most important thing in story driven games. But that absolutely does not mean you can disregard the gameplay or mechanics. And if you do, you should not expect the game to be looked upon with fondness.
>I don’t mean to offend anyone