71267613 visitors

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BRPXQZME

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 110
Gaming Discussion / Re: Re: Gaming Progress Thread
« on: December 26, 2012, 05:06:16 am »
I got FTL: Faster Than Light from a friend and


I got to sector 8 on easy after a few games, but if you’re not ready by that point, you will get owned. And so I did. Some of it is luck-based (only ran across one weapons seller!), but in a lot of ways the game is a harrowing test of knowledge and skill. Enjoyable, though.

General Discussion / Re: Body Hair?
« on: December 25, 2012, 07:29:13 pm »

General Discussion / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
« on: December 25, 2012, 04:31:54 pm »
Those are warp nacelles; you don’t keep warp drives up in there!</nerrrrrd>

Gaming Discussion / Re: Did anyone play Pier Solar
« on: December 25, 2012, 07:42:08 am »
Console warring is turrible.

Console warring a decade after it’s stopped being remotely relevant is turrible.

General Discussion / Re: I quit!
« on: December 25, 2012, 12:16:18 am »
Oh, my mother complains about Korean Drivers all the time (and she is a Korean Driver too, and... well, sometimes I am too).

General Discussion / Re: I quit!
« on: December 24, 2012, 10:10:14 pm »
They were both on the Korean side, so it’s more like...

(other than those two and my parents, all my blood-related aunts and uncles who are still alive smoke if I’m not mistaken; I would never, because I’m asthmatic.)

General Discussion / Re: I quit!
« on: December 24, 2012, 09:16:51 pm »
I think the best way to quit is to wean yourself off them, not go cold turkey as a lot of people (who have never smoked in their lives) recommend.
Yeah, I mean, I have two uncles who quit cold turkey (around the same time, didn’t even tell their own families about it), but that’s hard mode.

General Discussion / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:07:01 pm »
I think the answer would kind of depend on what appeals to you about it.

If it’s being HBO-caliber, the answer is no, I don’t know of anything.

Gaming Discussion / Re: Will the Wii-U blow?
« on: December 23, 2012, 07:45:15 pm »
learn about x.246 encoding, you can fit blu ray quality onto a DVD. DVDs use mpeg-2, which is just sad.
You can get HD rips and all that, but it sure ain’t gonna be Blu-ray quality.

As for redbox it is somewhat convenient, but Netflix instant streaming is a lot more economical.
Except when don’t/can’t get good Internet. People tend not to realize it, but gasoline has exceedingly greater bandwidth than most Internet connections. It’s the latency and price where they lose.

General Discussion / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
« on: December 23, 2012, 06:24:30 pm »

General Discussion / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
« on: December 23, 2012, 05:48:47 pm »
He was declared some super-gifted wunderkind by an alien early on, and they cashed in on it painfully late.

That said, I would have loved to see him come back wayyyy later as a jaded guy who utterly failed to live up to that impossible potential, regrets ever having whatever time-space warping ability he had that was never clearly defined, and just wants everyone to stop expecting good things of him because he’s cracked under the pressure and is only lower decks material.

General Discussion / Re: I quit!
« on: December 23, 2012, 05:37:18 pm »
But I have an extra $140 a month!

spend it

hoard it

use it to fund a good habit

Gaming Discussion / Re: Will the Wii-U blow?
« on: December 23, 2012, 05:32:40 pm »
Why? Who watches DVDs anymore?

(also, redbox people, which are a lot of people apparently)

General Discussion / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
« on: December 23, 2012, 03:06:07 pm »
Next Generation (ST:TNG) didn't find its feet until the beginning of the third season, when Riker grew the beard.
Hey now, that was the second season!

Now, Voyager always struck me as the guys upstairs (this being Michael Piller and Rick Berman) wanting to tailor a Star Trek show to the aging baby boomer generation. I think it was a huge mistake. All the sex, most of the violence, and any real sense of menace or foreboding was forcibly extracted from the series, and what you wind up with is a Star Trek show that plays it very safe, taking as few risks as possible. Enterprise was a poorly-written mess. I still don't know what they were thinking with that bunch of horse shit.
Although much can be laid at the feet of B&B, one of the biggest things that killed Voyager and Enterprise was being network shows instead of syndicated. All the creative freedom afforded to TNG and DS9 was sacrificed to the false idols of Ratings and NoContinuity. When they tried anything gutsy during the Voyager years, it was either nixed, or they wouldn’t let it stick. By the time they started fixing anything with Enterprise, it was too late—sucks, but most shows don’t get three seasons to warm up.

General Discussion / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
« on: December 22, 2012, 10:37:34 pm »
I got into DS9 because it was good but it was also different so YMMV.

Voyager and most of Enterprise were... eh.

In retrospect, a lot of TNG was not so good, either, but the groundbreaking they did on a regular basis was astounding.

TOS and its movies are different animals from the rest of them, and in a way, I’m just guessing that this movie will prove whether Abrams is boldly going in a completely new direction or not.

General Discussion / Re: Gun control
« on: December 22, 2012, 09:36:08 pm »
Are you sure about that? Stolen goods don’t often benefit thieves directly; they tend to have some sort of support network, even if their lone fence is just a guy who doesn’t ask questions.[1] Besides that, I somewhat doubt that there is some code of conduct among criminals that prevents them from mobbing your house if they found a few more partners.

But that is a point I’m willing to set aside. So-called high ammo capacity has more important benefits than crowd control. One of them is that it often takes more than one shot to stop a threat, when it comes down to shooting. For one, people miss; it’s unavoidable that people have a good chance of missing when they shoot. For another, you have not necessarily stopped any threat if the target is shot only once. To stop a threat (in the sense of using firearms), you need to keep sending the lead in the same direction until it is stopped; if the idea is that reloading takes a bad guy off the target and puts him at a disadvantage, the same goes for legal usage from someone defending.

So let’s say an opponent in a firefight is using an illegal high capacity magazine and you are using the legally limited magazine, all other factors being equal. Who is at a disadvantage? This scenario may sound contrived to some, but it must be considered because the fact is that banning high capacity magazines will do very little to keep them off the black market. All a magazine has to have in most cases (no pun intended) is some sheet metal and a spring, neither of which is exactly hard to come by or handle. Not that the black market has trouble producing more complicated items like firearms themselves. (Actually, I digress, but don’t count the black market out on anything anymore.[2])

Ultimately, I approach my opinions to weapons legislation on the same consideration I would approach any legislation: law that does not concern itself with secondary as well as immediate effects is ill-considered. Putting the black market at a serious advantage relative to the legal market is one such secondary effect. We even have a nation-wide case study to look at. The AWB (1994–2004), which limited magazines for civilian use to ten rounds, had an effect only on legal firearm owners while it was in effect (reduced the supply of new such magazines, making them more expensive). In that time, plenty of criminals were found with plenty of magazines that stated right on them that only military and law enforcement were supposed to have them. But these sorts were already breaking a host of laws, so what’s one more to them? So while I’m all for nailing criminals harder (not that it really seems to deter crime), if your goal is to reduce senseless killing, this measure is not going to do anything good on its own. Confiscation would also be highly impractical—at the end of the AWB, there were still plenty of high-capacity magazines from before the ban (millions of them).

To summarize more abstractly:
If you accept that potentially lethal force via firearm is a responsible measure to defend yourself from likewise lethal force, there is no number of bullets in a magazine that makes it stop being responsible, because it’s the application of force that counts. In the meantime, you cannot count on an assailant to limit his use of force or otherwise play by the rules, and laws (on their own) will do nothing to deter him due to logistical issues.

[1] http://www.academia.edu/465485/How_Prolific_Thieves_Sell_Stolen_Goods_Describing_Understanding_and_Tackling_the
[2] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/28/black_market_global_economy

General Discussion / Re: Gun control
« on: December 22, 2012, 06:02:10 pm »
Your home’s desecration was not a solo effort.

General Discussion / Re: Questions for non-native English speakers.
« on: December 22, 2012, 02:56:23 pm »
English doesn't transliterate anything, though. When we borrow a word, we just leave the spelling as it is. (which is why our orthography is so screwed up in the first place)
Our orthography is more screwed up due to linguistic evolution than to our propensity for borrowing willy nilly. Vowel shift is a hell of a drug.

Gaming Discussion / Re: Will the Wii-U blow?
« on: December 22, 2012, 02:37:17 pm »
And the AVC playback license is a tiddly portion of Blu-ray licensing fees.

General Discussion / Re: Body Hair?
« on: December 21, 2012, 10:46:49 pm »
If you plan to shave your body, any hair on your body, it will grow in thicker and fast.
It would do that regardless of the shaving.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 110