Search Results

Well honestly I just want to finish up what this all started with
Unpredictable, uncontrollable? That sounds like synonyms of chaos to me
And that's why that's what the word became associated with it

Oh for the love of
I have to put it somewhere ELSE now? @Square Enix-chan you destroyed everything

Anyways yeah, I've made that argument in the same place where this topic originated from. My stance is that there isn't enough objective to say about a game to fill a review, there is enough subjective stuff for a review, but the strongest ones use both. Like not that YOU asked, but as much as possible I try to make the footage in my reviews line up with my complaints so that people have some way of seeing it

That's kinda another thing, with something that minimalistic what objectively can you say?
It's white
It's a canvas
It's called Snowy Day

That's just a description, there's no review to be found.
Though with things a bit more complex, like a video game, there are objective things you can say that can impact purchasing decision, like frames per second, or lag

called it

God dammit this is the third time I've had an article thrown at me as an argument.
Okay, so I read it, and I have a HUUUUUGE fundamental problem with it, right off the bat.
It says the state is flawed because of... god and evil? For someone talking about indoctrination, I'm amazed your beliefs are based around as flawed of a concept as 'evil people'
The article talks a lot about how everything else is wrong... but what about it makes it RIGHT? It repeats that the state is flawed, brainswashing, how t doesn't get rid of bad things... how does eliminating all higher powers help that? How does that even slightly improve things?
The government or whatever you want to call it is PRETTY far from perfect, but how does the lack of rulers somehow stop people from consolidating power? The basis for our society comes from a person getting more than another person. Eventually someone would become a leader, if not in name. A well liked charismatic person, or a person with the money (or resources, if this society doesn't have money) to support people. And it grows from there. There are inherent flaws, but that article in no way convinced me that the inherent flaws of a ruler-less society would have less or better flaws than our current one. And certainly not that it's won't eventually lead to chaos.
Seriously, remove authority? So no teachers, no police, no firemen, no doctors. Nobody who can tell anybody what to do. So what happens when a kid gets mad and doesn't want to learn something? Who is even teaching them? Is the concept of parenthood gone in this vision as well? This would go beyond the concept of there being no punishment for questionable behaviour, for that matter. There would be no standard to base the behaviour on. Suppose your kid is at whatever counts for a school... or something where he's around kids, I dunno. And the kid gets in a fight. There's no authority figure to stop them, no form of punishment waiting for them. Suppose it gets too violent, and one of the kids dies accidentally. What then? The kid can't be punished in any standard way, so what happens? Does the parent kill the kid back? What about that kid's parents?
I'm not left feeling like this isn't a utopian society because it seems to operate under the assumption that everything will work itself out. And I guess if you're some sort of survival of the fittest extremist, it kinda would

I'm part of the problem because I see how people get without a leader? A lot oft he argument in the part I think you wanted me to read is that the government does bad things.
Yes, it does. But you know what else it does? It gives me a course of action if a person doesn't pay me for my work, besides killing them.
Anarchy is chaos, because people are chaotic. 40 million chaotic people are SUPER chaotic.

But I want people to actually post in it.
bleagh, fine

I dunno, I figured anarchy evolved to be chaos because that's ultimately what anarchy begat.
Since anarchy, as a concept, sounds good (kinda like Communism) but ultimately fails due to people either migrating towards authority or just being dicks. Historically, people LOVE higher beings, whether they're kings, presidents, gods. It helps relieve some of the burden of responsibility. The other side of this is that people would to do bad things without a moral code and punishment to go with it. A lack of authority leads to things like vigilantism, manipulation, theft, and other not particularly enjoyable things. In theory there is probably a way to make it work, but it would ironically probably require some sort of supremely powerful force to keep people in check until they eventually learnt not to kill each other, elect leaders, and otherwise do what humans do.

I want to sit down an enjoy the show, not 20 minutes of show and 10 minutes of ads. The worst case is movies, where they randomly cut in the middle of dialog and stuff. Sure, TV shows are often based around the ad structure (though if you watch shows from years ago when there were less ads you get that same movie thing they they just get cut off randomly)
In theory I have no problem with ads. It's how most people make their movie in the entertainment industry, but the bold faced intrusiveness makes it a lot harder to swallow, especially when for a tiny fee you can watch it without ads on Netflix, or just pirate it. Piracy is illegal, yeah, but ti's still their competition. I prefer Netflix over piracy because it offers me far better service than a torrent site.
I wish it were acceptable for stuff like youtube to have more ads, so content creators I like could get more money, and I dislike the smug adblock culture, but I definitely don't want to watch something on youtube full of breaks and stuff
(as for the tune it out thing, that involves having something else to do while watching TV, that's a lot more active than I'd assume most TV watchers want to be, since most people I know do it to relax)
but honestly, I think people would tolerate ads a lot more if they were just... a lot better

so, related note
How terrifying is it that that future could have us pay for internet the same way we pay for cable

I think the more prominent issue is that I'm pretty sure that's from Big Bang Theory

Then you should try to get as many people as possible to start googling words before they use them. I've started trying to make this a habit. When a remember, I always double check a word if I have any doubt about it. If everybody just used their easily accessible internet things everyone would know a lot more about words and stuff

I guess it's better defined as cable, yeah, but I still don't get it. You have to wait and hope what you want comes on, you have to deal with a million hours of ads, and despite all this it costs a bunch to actually get what you want and you're forced to get a bunch of other stuff you don't want just to access it.
It's so archaic, why do people still use it in 2014

Well... yes. Especially if there was a dictionary that said so. Eventually when you die nobody will remember you, but that doesn't mean you didn't exist, anyways

Yeah, it rings a bell now though, aren't they butchering it into a movie soon or something?

but in this context Makaze is saying it would be self inflicted because of how language is evolving naturally

Sparx is dead

Oh well that already makes it infinitely more ridiculous, human language evolution would never get rid of words for bad things, we'd just make more

Not gonna lie, I don't get why people still watch TV

it's not gay if it's dry