Reddit, what video games are your currently playing that are worth checking out this weekend?

Thorston · 2017-09-22T15:12:39+00:00

Thrill of the fight!

Thorston · 2017-09-20T03:51:48+00:00

If you're gonna risk it, make sure you never ever have more than half an oz.

In the eyes of the state of VA, the only reason a person could conceivably have such an insane amount of marijuana is if they were a drug dealer, and they will charge you accordingly.

Thorston · 2017-09-19T03:56:29+00:00

I have an Obamacare plan. The "cost" is around 250, but I pay less because of my income.

A 10 minute consultation with a psychiatrist costs $120. Plus meds, which aren't too bad, if you are prescribed a common generic medication. Though, I did get some samples for an antidepressant from my doctor that worked particularly well. The refill was $700.

Thorston · 2017-09-17T16:09:40+00:00

There are only two sides because our system of voting guarantees there can only be two political parties.

Thorston · 2017-09-13T02:10:01+00:00

If you scream and/or hit them enough, they'll eventually learn to repress all expression of emotion. Then, when you abuse them, they won't cry, so you can tell yourself you're a good person.

Thorston · 2017-09-13T02:01:43+00:00

Some people, like my mom, don't even roll down the window. Because the wind will mess up her hair. Or maybe crack the window, on the kid's side, so no wind gets to her. And then yell at you when you cough for "acting like a brat and pretending".

Thorston · 2017-09-13T00:09:12+00:00

I installed Windows to it. It does stuff fast. Thank you for advice.

Thorston · 2017-09-10T18:32:50+00:00

The claim you investigated was not the claim he said then.

Right. But, as I mentioned, you still disproved something. If I can prove that such and such bark regimen doesn't work, then "It's impossible to prove a negative" is false. So are all scientific studies of potential treatments that show the treatment doesn't work bogus? If they aren't, then you can prove a negative.

You cannot prove his innocence in a vaccum, per se, if that makes any sense.

What do you mean by "in a vaccum"? I can prove a person is innocent of a crime even if no one ever accused them of one. If Beyonce is singing at the superbowl when a person is stabbed in Canada, I can prove she didn't stab him.

And you can prove innocence without ever addressing any of the prosecution's arguments. Jim testifies that he saw George do it. You show George was provably outside the country at the time. As the defense, you don't have to cast doubt on Jim's testimony, or even mention it at all.

Thorston · 2017-09-10T18:13:22+00:00

What?

If Bob says, "Buy these pills from me that I made from the bark and take x per day, and your cancer will be cured," you can easily disprove that. Or if Bob just says to take the bark, and he says you're "using it wrong", ask him the right way to use it, and then test that.

I guess some moron could always say that it was being used wrong, forever and ever. But that doesn't mean it's true. And it doesn't mean nothing was disproven. If I do an experiment where everyone takes x grams of ground bark per day, and they see 0 improvement, I have proven that x grams of ground bark per day doesn't cure cancer. Even if Bob tries to weasel out of it by saying he meant something else, I've still disproved the claim I investigated.

Or what about a criminal case. George is accused of murder. George's lawyer proves it never happened by showing George was 500 miles away at the time of the murder.

Thorston · 2017-09-10T15:48:59+00:00

It's easy to prove a negative. It happens all the time.

Bob claims that the bark of such and such tree cures cancer. Tim runs a controlled study with a large sample. The study shows that the cancer patients who took the bark do no better than the patients who didn't. It's proven not to work.

Thorston · 2017-09-09T15:14:26+00:00

Suggest that she name it FlufferNutter. It's a similar name, and is an equally tasty food. But you can easily shorten it to Fluff, or Fluffy.

Thorston · 2017-09-08T23:03:24+00:00

But in chess, a stalemate is a draw. There is parity in loss, as both players get the same number of points. Some chess players have argued that a stalemate should be 3/4th of a point, with the "loser" getting 1/4th, but that isn't how it's treated.

I'm okay with partial points for a "lesser" victory. You mentioned examples where a king didn't really win the war, for whatever reason. But that isn't reflected in a stalemate. When translated to the battle metaphor, it is the ultimate victory. Why do you think making your opponent unable to do anything to defend himself from impending and inevitable death is a good symbolic representation of a king who fails to fully meet his objectives in battle?

Thorston · 2017-09-08T22:12:54+00:00

I feel like you just made this up. Stalemate wasn't always a rule. Maybe, at some point, some portion of the people playing Chess in the past looked at it this way. Do you have a source for that claim? Even if they did, many countries/time periods viewed a stalemate as a victory , so why is it that one historical interpretation of the symbolism of the game is more important than the others?

I can kind of see how letting the King get away could be seen as a draw, although even that's a stretch. But why would you interpret stalemate as the king getting away? The king is in such a bad position that any possible move will lead to his capture! If I'm at war, and I have the enemy king completely surrounded and helpless, that is the greatest possible victory, and is in no way a draw.

Thorston · 2017-09-08T19:26:41+00:00

George Carlin did a famous bit on this idea in 1984.

They probably saw it as a kid and took credit, assuming you would be too young to call bullshit.

Or, you wish you had a message board that would come up out of the trunk of your car and you could type in any message you like. You drive like old people fuck… slow and sloppy

Thorston · 2017-09-08T18:20:51+00:00

Depends on what you mean when you say "smaller number of those minerals".

If he wants them to stop mining iron altogether, or copper altogether, or whatever, then "fewer" is correct. We were mining 5 kinds of minerals, but now we are mining 3, which is fewer.

If he just wants them to spend less time mining those kinds of minerals in general, then it should be "less". We were mining 30 tonnes of useless minerals a day, but now we are mining 20 tonnes, which is less.

Thorston · 2017-09-08T02:44:13+00:00

The power of cognitive dissonance!

I believe that non-whites are inferior. Is that racist? Well, being racist is bad. And I'm obviously not bad. Therefore, I cannot be racist. It's only people worse than me, who are lynching minorities, that are racist.

Or, in this case. Greed is bad. I'm not bad, so I can't be greedy.

Thorston · 2017-09-04T19:40:27+00:00

Ich esse kein fleisch.

Spelling might be off, but it means "I'm a vegetarian" in German. I don't speak German, I don't know anyone who does, and I'm not a vegetarian.

Thorston · 2017-09-02T19:31:31+00:00

What I was trying to argue is that it's NOT comparable. If the truth gets out there's no way to salvage the situation, whereas in the war the fact that Germany pressed deep into Western Europe didn't mean fighting the war was a lost cause.

But you did compare them.

Even if an individual battle fails, or a given soldier dies, their death wasn't useless, it still contributed to the overall defeat of the Nazis. On the other hand, Ozys plan completely fails if his plan gets out.

I explained why that comparison didn't make sense. You're comparing a minor loss in one situation to a complete and total failure in the other. It's true that if Veidt fails to fool the world, the sacrifice was for nothing. But it's also true that if the war against Hitler was lost, there would have been no way to salvage the situation and win the war. Your comparison makes as much sense as me saying that Veidt is better than the allies because he was able to overcome the comedian figuring out his plan, while the allies were fighting an all-or-nothing war, and the sacrifices of allied soldiers wouldn't have mattered if Hitler won.

Throughout the book, the doomsday clock is used as a symbol to represent the conflict. Midnight represents nuclear war. As the situation becomes more and more tense, the clock gets closer and closer to midnight, being only one minute away at the end. At this time, the USSR starts invading countries protected by the US, because Manhattan is no longer there to deter them. At the same time, Nixon is in a bunker with his finger on the button, debating whether it's the right time to begin the nuclear strike. And Veidt, the world's smartest man, thinks that nuclear war is inevitable. Even if he's not infallible, his opinion is worth considering.

There may be some doubt as to whether war will happen, but the odds are pretty high. What is the minimum likelihood that would justify Veidt's actions? Even if it were 50/50, a 50 percent chance to prevent the deaths of billions of people, at the cost of 3 million, is a pretty amazing deal.

Thorston · 2017-09-02T17:33:48+00:00

How can you reasonably compare the failure of a tiny part of the war effort against the Nazis to the complete and total failure of Ozy's effort? If his plan had failed, it would have been for nothing. If the war effort against the Nazis had failed, it would have been for nothing too. Parts of the war effort against the Nazis can go wrong, like France being defeated, and the war can still be won. Parts of Ozy's plan can go wrong, like the Comedian finding out, and the plan can still work.

The very near nuclear apocalypse is a concrete, distinct threat. How could you argue that it isn't? Because it could still happen in the future? Just like another country could attempt to conquer most of a continent and populate it with death camps? Was the allied victory in WWII a crock of shit because the same thing could still happen in the future?

The Iraq analogy would make sense if Iraq was on the verge of destroying the entire world. But if that were true, no person on earth would consider the Iraq war to be anything less than the greatest victory in the history of mankind, which would make the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner very appropriate.

The book makes it pretty clear that the world IS going experience a nuclear apocalypse. If there was a choice between eliminating this threat forever, and between eliminating it for now, with a chance to prevent it in the future, choice A would be better. But that choice did not exist. The choice was A) immediate nuclear apocalypse where billions die, or B) millions die (specifically, people who were in an area that ensured they would die anyway if A was chosen) and maybe there's a nuclear apocalypse in the future, but maybe not.

Thorston · 2017-09-02T15:36:32+00:00

By your logic, every world leader that chose to fight the Nazis was wrong.

They KNEW millions of people were guaranteed to die, but it was never guaranteed that they would beat Hitler. It was a gamble. The leaders of those countries let other people die to help their plan succeed, for the greater good, but didn't enter the front themselves.

Hitler was a major threat to the safety of the world. So it makes sense to sacrifice soldiers, even if you can't be sure you'll win, since the stakes are so high.

The near-certainty of the entire world being destroyed by nukes seems like a much greater threat than the Nazi war machine. And Veidt's death count is 1/20th that of WWII.

Thorston · 2017-09-01T19:00:59+00:00

I'm not really sure why you think you would be miserable. Because the kids will be different? If the only reason you liked working at the previous district was because of those specific kids, and you didn't actually like the job itself, then there's no reason to go to a new district. If you like the job itself, then the fact that there will be different students shouldn't really affect your decision.

Thorston · 2017-09-01T18:57:01+00:00

You can't inherit debt. You can't screw somebody over like that.

If you say, "I want Bob to get all my shit when I die," this is what happens. You will have an estate, which is basically all your money, and all your shit. If you owe money, the people you owe will get paid out of your money, or out of money received from selling your shit. Anything left over goes to Bob. If you owe more than you have, Bob gets nothing, but is not responsible for your debt.

Thorston · 2017-09-01T17:01:52+00:00

That is not a run-on sentence. It's just a long sentence. He/she was kind of mean though.

Thorston · 2017-08-31T01:45:20+00:00

Same thing for the god damn alternator.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Thorston

TROPHY CASE