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 - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 313233 3435 ... 502
961
« on: September 01, 2016, 06:21:06 AM »
A turkeyyyyyyyyy.
962
« on: September 01, 2016, 06:15:10 AM »
Fugg it keeps displaying "failed to buy item"
Refresh the page and just keep hitting buy.
963
« on: September 01, 2016, 04:05:05 AM »
I might do this for Medic/Support if i don't get enough playtime before the end of the beta
When does the beta finish?
964
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:26:54 PM »
i'm sorry bill
i'm afraid i cant let you do that
take a look at your history
everything you built leads up to me
i got the power of a mind you could never be
i'll beat your ass in chess and jeopardy
i'm runnin c plus plus sayin hello world
i'll beat you till your singin bout a daisy girl
i'm comin out the socket
nothin you can do can stop it
i'm in your lap and in your pocket
how you gonna shoot me down when i guide the rocket?
your cortex just doesn't impress me
so go ahead try to turing test me
i stomp on a mac and a pc too
i'm on linux bitch
i thought you gnu
my cpus hot but my core runs cold
beat you in seventeen lines of code
i think different from the engine of the days of old
hasta la vista
like the terminator told ya
965
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:14:33 PM »
Battlefield website > career > BF1 > loadout
Provided you have enough warbonds, all weapons are available regardless of class.
Just bought the SMLE Carbine, bunch of LMGs, the MP18 Experimental, the heavy shotgun and the FUCKING ANTI-TANK RIFLE BABY WOO
966
« on: August 31, 2016, 09:27:12 PM »
im part irish and this offends me
967
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:25:03 PM »
G2A
Thanks for being "pro consumer" with a developer scam site
wat
Basically G2A is able to undercut everyone else because they sell stolen goods and keys gained from currency manipulation. Because this against the ToS for a lot of companies you also run the risk of having your game license revoked if they find you playing a game with one of those keys.
tl;dr caveat emptor
well fuck
Rekt.
tiddies or gtfo
968
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:19:16 PM »
On the Value of Virtual Currencies This paper develops an economic framework to analyze the exchange rate of virtual currency. Three components are important: first, the current use of virtual currency to make payments; second, the decision of forward-looking investors to buy virtual currency (thereby effectively regulating its supply); and third, the elements that jointly drive future consumer adoption and merchant acceptance of virtual currency. The model predicts that, as virtual currency becomes more established, the exchange rate will become less sensitive to the impact of shocks to speculators’ beliefs. This undermines the notion that excessive exchange rate volatility will prohibit widespread use of virtual currency. Reminder that bitcoin is primarily used to avoid government appropriation and buy illegal goods and services off darknet markets.
969
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:13:26 PM »
Medics are fantastic mate, you can revive the same person multiple times over and healing is never not unuseful.
I say they're useless because of the shitty spawn/revive system DICE has decided to go with. It's certainly possible (and enjoyable) to play as a Medic decently, but the game dynamics make it unnecessarily frivolous.
970
« on: August 31, 2016, 08:10:45 PM »
I'd recommend EUIV, but I also plan on buying Stellaris.
I played the demo and had no idea what to do. I played as Austria and ended up winning against Bavaria, but I have no idea how to manage everything. Does the full game explain the mechanics better?
Nope, there's a pretty massive learning curve. You'll probably have to play as a few different countries to really get the hang of it; plus there's no real "objective" besides "run your country". The same is probably true of Stellaris.
971
« on: August 31, 2016, 07:25:22 PM »
I'd recommend EUIV, but I also plan on buying Stellaris.
972
« on: August 31, 2016, 07:05:11 PM »
Edit: Here's the most recent example, where I said I would respond to all of your links and you replied that you'd refuse to read it. Why should I respect anything you post if you refuse to reciprocate?
I never complain about people not listening to me, people can be smart and take my advice or they can ignore me and realize I was right in a few decades. Doesn't matter to me. 
973
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:52:17 PM »
Verb should do LPs.
974
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:39:39 PM »
Shotgun is 10/10 levels of face melting
Is class levelling still fucked?
975
« on: August 31, 2016, 06:17:23 PM »
Anyone playing on PC?
Yup.
976
« on: August 31, 2016, 05:38:14 PM »
G2A
Thanks for being "pro consumer" with a developer scam site
wat
Basically G2A is able to undercut everyone else because they sell stolen goods and keys gained from currency manipulation. Because this against the ToS for a lot of companies you also run the risk of having your game license revoked if they find you playing a game with one of those keys.
tl;dr caveat emptor
well fuck
977
« on: August 31, 2016, 05:34:33 PM »
Who likes it so far?
It's. . . Okay. The Support and Medic classes are next to useless, although the Medic rifles are pretty decent. The map is dominated by fairly long-range engagements, so snipers rule supreme which can be annoying, but running with an unscoped Gewehr or Russian 1985 can be good at mid- to long-range. Tanks are OP as fuck, made worse by the fact that the class levelling system is broken so nobody really has the Tankgewehr and the only way to get one is on the capture point furthest away from any real action. The game has a 20 minute time limit, so you'll pretty much never get full tickets/see the train. The gun-play feels kind of. . . Weird; the SMGs are only good at close range and there's little point ADSing unless they're halfway across the village, the LMGs get more accurate the longer you fire, the semi-auto rifles are decent but you can't fire them very quickly and maintain accuracy. The bolt action rifles are decent. Oh, and the servers are currently down due to a DDOS attack.
978
« on: August 31, 2016, 05:28:09 PM »
Nice government-backed studies.
Sorry they're not drawn in Crayon for you.
979
« on: August 31, 2016, 05:00:30 PM »
Lol, just to humour you Trojan, I looked through the available data from 1961-2015. 1969 was a year in which just five countries had negative growth, with Senegal having the worst at just negative 6pc growth. If the world really is zero sum, how do you explain such a tiny number of countries experiencing negative growth while the rest experience positive growth?
980
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:53:57 PM »
but the main longterm goal would be to unify the world right? Why? so we just have to get rid of cultural problems.
Good luck with that.
981
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:53:09 PM »
Alright, show me one year where every single country had economic growth.
Except we know pretty well what causes recessions, and it's not that other countries are growing to the point where another cannot. . . This should be evident from the fact that everywhere today is richer than in 1500. Given that there are over 200 countries, with varying economic configurations, why the fuck would you expect there to be a year where every single economy has seen aggregate growth. And, why a year? Why not over a decade, or half a century, or a quarter?
982
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:39:02 PM »
Because reality is a zero sum game, one unit of a resource one group has another one clearly does not.
Economic growth is a thing.
983
« on: August 31, 2016, 04:38:43 PM »
Globalism itself isn't intrinsically bad as long as the rules, customs and laws of the nation state are still respected.
why does there need to be a nation though?
Because cultures and ethnicity exists. Globalism is a good thing, but so are nation-states. Not only does it divide the world up into manageable administrative areas, but we're a long way off from incorporating areas of Africa and the Middle East into the global community--let alone any kind of global federal arrangement--due to all the sectarian conflict and poverty.
984
« on: August 31, 2016, 03:36:47 PM »
The nature of subjectivity eliminates the possibility of objectively proving anything.
It's pretty clear that, in this instance, "prove" means "demonstrate the probability of".
You can't absolutely prove any synthetic proposition.
So why worry about anything beyond the immediately practical?
Because probability is thing.
985
« on: August 31, 2016, 01:30:53 PM »
What I'm arguing is that all negative assertions are non-empirical by nature. We can seek empirical data to help assure us that the assertion is true or false, but empiricism only goes so far. In reality, there are limitless explanations for any given phenomena that go beyond empiricism.
Then we don't really disagree at all. My point is that you can do much the same with positive assertions. My argument is that, as far as it matters--that is, empirically--then negative and positive propositions can be treated much the same. Of course it can break down when you start making ridiculous and unfalsifiable propositions, but that's not necessarily limited to negative propositions. Negative propositions probably have a more difficult time when it comes to keeping themselves empirically grounded, but that's why science works on the basis of rigour. I think you're giving too much credit to the people making non-empirical revisions to propositions. There comes a point where their claim can neither be proved or disproved, but if you're rigorous enough in your consideration of the original proposition, it's of course possible to demonstrate its probably falsehood. I'm not saying negative propositions are easily provable; merely that if they are held to the kind of standard we should hold them to, then they will be provable. My problem with "You can't prove a negative" is that you can quite clearly prove a well-defined enough negative. . . Which should be the only proposition we have to deal with when somebody makes an argument. And hell, like I said, if you want you can just tell lazy proposition makers to fuck off. My ability to disprove something wouldn't necessarily remove your onus to demonstrate it in the first place; only when you have offered some kind of justification would I bear any kind of responsibility to respond properly. EDIT: Underlined the most important part, cause I rambled a bit.
986
« on: August 31, 2016, 01:04:37 PM »
The nature of subjectivity eliminates the possibility of objectively proving anything.
It's pretty clear that, in this instance, "prove" means "demonstrate the probability of". You can't absolutely prove any synthetic proposition.
987
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:57:44 AM »
but i would just like to point out that that is not a negative assertion There is no difference between a positive or negative assertion besides framing; a negative proposition is just the flip-side of a positive one. Just read the pdf I posted man, it's like two pages. I'd also point out that, even if I had endeavoured to prove the negative that there is no black bear in your room, you are still the one making the original assertion. The onus is therefore originally on you to demonstrate that the bear is there. Hitchens Razor is still valid.
988
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:46:39 AM »
precisely
So where the hell do you even disagree with me?
989
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:46:08 AM »
The key here is that it's entirely possible to disprove propositions with well-defined empirical content.
If you say to me "there is a perfectly normal black bear with no supernatural abilities sitting in my living room eating from a jar of honey" I can quite easily disprove this. I mean, even if you change the proposition I have still proven the negative of the original proposition, since there would certainly be no "perfectly normal black bear" turning invisible.
The fact that you can't prove some negatives does not mean you can't prove a negative generally; it's exactly the same with positive propositions. Some propositions, positive or negative, due to their content, simply cannot be proved at all.
990
« on: August 31, 2016, 11:38:36 AM »
the unicorn could be invisible and ethereal
At which point I would fall back on epistemic noncognitivism, and claim that something defined entirely with non-empirical metaphysics is functionally meaningless, making the proposition void in the first instance.
this is what we call a "copout"
the functional meaninglessness of some entity does not demonstrate its nonexistence
No, but if you have a totally non-empirical entity neither its existence nor non-existence is demonstrable. . .
Pages: 1 ... 313233 3435 ... 502
|
Show Posts