The Gaming Den

Lago wrote:I do not understand people who put alcoholic drinks in their coffee.

Like Count said, it depends on the drink. Maxing alcohol and coffee should be about on par with mixing frou-frou syrups in coffee. If you don't like it, or it clashes horribly, don't drink it.

But Baily's, Kahlua (ironic, I know), amaretto, creme de cacao...

So apparently I missed this:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Kaelik wrote:I'm still not ashamed of being a lazy moocher in either case, because being a lazy moocher is not something to be ashamed of.

Thank you, Kaelik, for confirming why people who use the 'at least I admit it' excuse are even bigger douchebags than the hypocrite who condemned them.

No, your point was not that the admit is crowd are bigger douches, your point was that they were trying to use the claim that other people do it too to allow their actions to be okay:

"That's what I mean. It's used to provide deflection and weasel out of responsibility in some weakass tu quoque. It's like 'thank god this person is a hypocrite, now I don't have to face the fact that I have a character flaw."

Which is of course, completely false. Even if person X was not a hypocrite, I would still not give a damn, because I don't think Y is wrong.

TOZ wrote:

Kaelik wrote: because being a lazy moocher is not something to be ashamed of.

Tha fuck, Kaelik?

Why do work if you don't have to? If someone is willing to give me money, because they don't gain as much benefit from it as they gain from giving it to me, why the fuck should I go out of my way. If I'm married to [insert rich person here], I don't need a fucking day job, and there is no reason to have one, so the fact that I instead spend my day doing things I enjoy instead of working at some shitty job doesn't make me a bad person.

So therefore, if someone criticizes me for it, and I respond "You are pretty lazy too, the difference is, I hold to framework of ideas that makes my laziness a virtue, and you hold to one that makes your laziness a vice. Clearly, my laziness is not the problem, but instead, yours."

Kaelik wrote: Why do work if you don't have to? If someone is willing to give me money, because they don't gain as much benefit from it as they gain from giving it to me, why the fuck should I go out of my way.
...
So therefore, if someone criticizes me for it, and I respond "You are pretty lazy too, the difference is, I hold to framework of ideas that makes my laziness a virtue, and you hold to one that makes your laziness a vice. Clearly, my laziness is not the problem, but instead, yours."

You are all the people I hate at my work.

erik wrote:You are all the people I hate at my work.

Well there is the part where "If X is willing to give you money." I don't advocate working and then showing up and not doing your goddam job, because why the fuck are you working, stay home like a good house bitch.

I long for the day that I can be a house bitch, but I don't want to go to work and sit around wasting my time.

Kaelik wrote:

erik wrote:You are all the people I hate at my work.

Well there is the part where "If X is willing to give you money." I don't advocate working and then showing up and not doing your goddam job, because why the fuck are you working, stay home like a good house bitch.

I long for the day that I can be a house bitch, but I don't want to go to work and sit around wasting my time.

Okay that I can get behind. My wife is being a dedicated home-maker and I wish that it was me instead of (or in addition to) her.

If I didn't keep picking up other people's slack at work, there literally would be more dead people in this world. Lazy fucks. They simply have the mindset, I can go to a place of business, get paid doing as little as possible, and keep finding ways to do even less while still getting paid. So many live by the "why work if you don't have to" mantra- collecting paychecks without actually working, since clearly they don't have to since they haven't had their asses fired yet.

erik wrote:If I didn't keep picking up other people's slack at work, there literally would be more dead people in this world. Lazy fucks. They simply have the mindset, I can go to a place of business, get paid doing as little as possible, and keep finding ways to do even less while still getting paid. So many live by the "why work if you don't have to" mantra- collecting paychecks without actually working, since clearly they don't have to since they haven't had their asses fired yet.

My premise was that it's acceptable as long as the people are willing to give you money for not doing work.

I don't think the mere fact that they have not yet been fired is evidence that money would be willingly given for the work accomplished. I mean, I could theoretically set up the situation such that I obtain money that someone does not willingly give me, but they are unaware, that would not be mooching, it would be stealing.

Likewise, if the employees are merely hiding their lack of work, or taking advantage of a flawed process, that's closer to stealing than mooching.

As for I personally, I wouldn't even enjoy sitting at a job not doing work, I would rather be at home, and if I am at an actual job, I would prefer to have some results on me.

erik wrote:If I didn't keep picking up other people's slack at work, there literally would be more dead people in this world. Lazy fucks. They simply have the mindset, I can go to a place of business, get paid doing as little as possible, and keep finding ways to do even less while still getting paid. So many live by the "why work if you don't have to" mantra- collecting paychecks without actually working, since clearly they don't have to since they haven't had their asses fired yet.

[Oversimplification]

And this is why communism fails in practice.

[/Oversimplification]

I actually found this was a huge problem at the local college - Evergreen.

The school is based on a non-competitive principle, so no grades are given out. You get credit based on your work, and a written letter of critique/praise from each professor at the end of the class.

Now, I have actually participated in a program based on this principle at another school - and it worked quite well because they had divided the course material up in learning proficiencies (examples for calculus include deriving simple polynomials, multiple variable polynomials, etm), and you got credit based on the proficiencies you completed.

The advantage of this kind of schooling is that it's way easier to integrate multiple subject into each other. We didn't really have chemistry, math, physics... We had a block where we used the math in order to do chemistry, to tie in with physics, and programming and so on.

Evergreen is the same way in that regard - hugely integrative classes. Evergreen grads have the amazing ability to take just about any two subjects and tie them together. It's a finely honed combination of integrated learning and bullshitting that's pretty rare, all things considered.

But at Evergreen, the standardized proficiencies don't exist, so credits given by professors are highly variable. There are students who seriously sit in class and tell the teacher they don't want to do the work and still get full credit. There are students who show up to only four classes a quarter, don't do the work, and still get full credit (and a canned evaluation that doesn't express their lousiness).

And really... At that point, why am I working my ass off? Why should I bother to read a book I don't like and write a paper I don't want to if by doing nothing, I still pass?

When a system rewards assholery, everyone loses.

Just heard about the Aussie show Double the Fist yesterday, torrented and watched an episode today.

All I have to say is... WTF? I mean, it was enjoyable, funny even, but very strange...

Prak_Anima wrote:Just heard about the Aussie show Double the Fist yesterday, torrented and watched an episode today.

All I have to say is... WTF? I mean, it was enjoyable, funny even, but very strange...

The ABC in Australia is very good at picking up off the wall comedy like this.

Sometimes they get the hits. Sometimes.

From what I heard about it, or read on TV Tropes, it certainly seems that at least the first season was a hit, but it was still highly bizarre.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010 ... utiful.ars

Perhaps it's not fair to judge a game purely by the trailer, and by a minor aspect of said trailer, but fuck it. I'm a nerd, this is my right .

What's with the giant rack they put on the female character? One of the things I liked about the first Bioshock was that the female characters weren't overly sexualized. (Haven't played Bio 2, I don't know if they put any giant boob ladies in that one).

Granted, if the game is fun I'll let it slide, but I find that annoying.

Halo Reach. Specifically, the plot- I thought the gameplay was excellent. There were a couple of little bits which were a bit weird when compared to the novelisations, but then towards the end of the game you get to a certain plot point which really pissed me off, after which I noticed more things that were stupid. Admittedly, most of the irritation is how it compares to the novels, which I read probably over 5 years back, so my memories may not be correct and my irritation may be over nothing. But here we go:

• There are some bits I can just about ignore. For example Noble Six, the PC, meets up with the other Spartans, but they've never met each other before. But according to the book, they were all brought together and trained together. So they should at least have some memories of each other. Not that big an issue though, since I seem to recall that a later batch of spartans were cloned or something, it just niggles.
• Then I got to the big plot twist: Cortana turns out to be a Forerunner AI. As in millions of years old. What. The. Fuck? No, seriously, what? Again, according to the book, I remember Cortana as being based on one the of doctors in charge of the spartan program. And I remember Master Chief and Cortana working together before the fall of Reach, especially in one scene when showing off the spartan project to the military, where Cortana helps show where the mines are in a minefield based on the normal mine layout or some shit like that. Why the hell did they make Cortana Forerunner?
• After that I got more easily pissed off: you then have to take Cortana to the Pillar of Autumn before it leaves. For this, you get given a large, roughly american football sized and shaped object which holds the AI. Except that at the beginning of Halo, Cortana can be held in a thumb drive sized container. And in fact can be held inside a spartan's armour. So, you know, why don't they?
• If you look right during the cutscene at the end of the game when the Pelican is docking with the Pillar of Autumn, you can see the Master Chief. But I thought (based on a years old memory of the books) that he helped defend Reach, and in fact fought with other Spartans and was the only survivor when trying to remove some covenant from an orbiting space station. If so, why is he suddenly on the planet?
• The books say that Reach was completely glassed. Shot from orbit until everything was fucked. But Noble Six dies really close to the shipyards, an obvious target for destroying. But you can see his helmet left there for a long time, with nothing happening, no view of everything being destroyed. Unless of course he managed to get slightly out of reach of the blast radius (bullshit!) and the camera was facing the other way. Or the view is from hundreds of years later, and the mjolnir armour is tough enough to withstand glassing (also bullshit!).

My brother suggests that its because Halo Reach is an alternative continuity to the original Halo/Halo novels, like the latest Star Trek film is an alternative continuity to the Star Trek series. But it still pisses me off that the normal continuity is ignored, especially when it tries to have the events directly lead into the first Halo.

Now I did really enjoy the game, and it is brilliant as fanservice (Nathan Fillion returning as an ODST, various mentions of the Halo universe, redoing various scenes such as repeating the beginning of one of the missions from Halo 1, other bits and pieces here and there). But it seems like they were trying to make the game fit into the plot of the Halo trilogy. Which if so was a mistake.

re: plot point 5: Another book indicates that it was only partially glassed, and large segements left untouched because of a forerunner MacGuffin that allowed some sort of super-FTL or something the Covenant were looking for.

Plot point two sounds stupid.

Parthenon wrote:My brother suggests that its because Halo Reach is an alternative continuity to the original Halo/Halo novels, like the latest Star Trek film is an alternative continuity to the Star Trek series. But it still pisses me off that the normal continuity is ignored, especially when it tries to have the events directly lead into the first Halo.

This kind of rationalization is the only reason why the staff of Chrono Cross haven't died by my hand yet. Of course they're really pushing their luck with the Chrono Trigger DS remake.

"But you still loved her. Why didn't you fight for her?"

...what exactly do people expect men to do? Most women aren't going to respond too favourably when you beat the crap out of their boyfriend, and when a man pursues a woman who has feelings for someone else, they're told some variation of "you can't make someone love you/the heart wants what it wants/you can't choose who you're attracted to" so... what exact method of fighting for your love is expected to win you the girl?

Prak_Anima wrote:"But you still loved her. Why didn't you fight for her?"

...what exactly do people expect men to do? Most women aren't going to respond too favourably when you beat the crap out of their boyfriend, and when a man pursues a woman who has feelings for someone else, they're told some variation of "you can't make someone love you/the heart wants what it wants/you can't choose who you're attracted to" so... what exact method of fighting for your love is expected to win you the girl?

Whatever you do is wrong. Always. Whatever it was, if you aren't the happiest person in the world, and maybe even if you are, people are going to criticize you for your choice.

Prak_Anima wrote:"But you still loved her. Why didn't you fight for her?"

...what exactly do people expect men to do? Most women aren't going to respond too favourably when you beat the crap out of their boyfriend, and when a man pursues a woman who has feelings for someone else, they're told some variation of "you can't make someone love you/the heart wants what it wants/you can't choose who you're attracted to" so... what exact method of fighting for your love is expected to win you the girl?

[gross and horrible generalizations]

I don't know what it is with a lot of us women, but we want to see a guy be persistent.

I could insert a really long explanation here, but really, I think it boils down to...

We all know that [hetero] guys want pussy. We are inundated from all sides with stories of horny men trying to get laid. What a woman wants to feel is why a guy wants her pussy.

Persistence is one [very strong] manifestation of specific pussy-wanting. The one time when it's not appreciated is when the desirer of a specific pussy is someone utterly detestable - because it goes from making you feel special and wanted to making you feel kind of gross.

[/gross and horrible generalizations]

Maj wrote:The one time when it's not appreciated is when the desirer of a specific pussy is someone utterly detestable - because it goes from making you feel special and wanted to making you feel kind of gross.

...gee, thanks Maj. On the other hand, you've aptly summed up why I feel like I'm perceived as a hideous troll.

Does that part actually pertain to you? I didn't intend for it to - I was actually thinking about the sidekick, Miles, from The Hard Times of RJ Berger when I wrote that.

I'm going to add counterpoint here.

Prak, you're not a hideous troll. the pics you've posted show that you're not a bad looking guy.

I would disagree that Maj's persistence works for women in general. It might work for Maj (although Mr. Maj might not be very happy if you were persistant with her, he's kind of a big dude.)

I have found in my experience that persistance has the opposite effect. Of the higher-quality women I have dated (and despite my bitching, there was a couple I really did like), too much persistance is a death knell.

I know it sounds weird, but you have to seem like you don't need her at all, until the moment when you tell her you do in some romantic way (I don't understand it either, but it has seemed to work).

As far as violence goes, use violence to protect your girl from violence. Otherwise, don't bother. Fight for those you love, no one else is worth hald a goddamn.

Maj wrote:Does that part actually pertain to you? I didn't intend for it to - I was actually thinking about the sidekick, Miles, from The Hard Times of RJ Berger when I wrote that.

through out high school, yeah. Past it somewhat too, actually. But yeah, persistance did not pay off as I was lead to believe it would from...countless romantic works, from courtly romances of knight centered folk lore, to dumb comedies and shit movies.

Count wrote:Prak, you're not a hideous troll. the pics you've posted show that you're not a bad looking guy.

Yeah, rationally I know that, but I'm not the best when it comes to social situations, and... have a shit load of issues. So I tend to get rather depressed and down on myself when a night doesn't work out, or something.

I would disagree that Maj's persistence works for women in general. It might work for Maj (although Mr. Maj might not be very happy if you were persistant with her, he's kind of a big dude.)

I have found in my experience that persistance has the opposite effect. Of the higher-quality women I have dated (and despite my bitching, there was a couple I really did like), too much persistance is a death knell.

Yeah, I tried the persistence thing through out high school, and I know from extensive personal research that it doesn't get you anywhere.

Count wrote:I would disagree that Maj's persistence works for women in general.

I'm not talking persistence only as relates to winning a woman. I mean persistence overall - winning a woman is just part of it. Persistence is, unfortunately, still required even (especially?) after ten years of marriage.

When it comes specifically to winning a woman...

There's a different between persistence and stalking. That point - in my experience - is defined by the moment when a woman (not the guy) declares who she's going to be with. At the point where you're trying to get her away from her guy, you're being a douchebag, not being persistent.

The caveat to this is, of course, if she's in a bad relationship. In which case, you get her out of there.

Count wrote:It might work for Maj (although Mr. Maj might not be very happy if you were persistent with her, he's kind of a big dude.)

If you're talking persistence, I can speak for myself [in defining my own boundaries]. If you're talking stalking... Yeah, I can see Ess getting physical. But it would take a lot - he's a really chill dude.

Maj wrote:

Count wrote:I would disagree that Maj's persistence works for women in general.

There's a different between persistence and stalking. That point - in my experience - is defined by the moment when a woman (not the guy) declares who she's going to be with. At the point where you're trying to get her away from her guy, you're being a douchebag, not being persistent.

I dunno...I'm with Count, at least on women in my experience. Because the stalking thing isn't always about screwing up a relationship she's chosen, but trying to get her to consider an option she's already rejected (namely, you). Just because a woman's not seeing anyone right now doesn't mean you are necessarily a viable option, no matter how persistent you are. Nor, I should mention, does it necessarily matter how attractive, wealthy, etc you are...sometimes, she's just not interested in you.

Presenting yourself as "a catch" for any reason, including persistence, can be a big turnoff...it immediately says that her decision not to consider you is "wrong", when in fact it's simply...her decision.

(disclaimer: not a woman, can't speak for them in general, only relating personal experiences, often with women who are self-identified feminists).

Maj wrote: When it comes specifically to winning a woman...

There's a different between persistence and stalking. That point - in my experience - is defined by the moment when a woman (not the guy) declares who she's going to be with. At the point where you're trying to get her away from her guy, you're being a douchebag, not being persistent.

The caveat to this is, of course, if she's in a bad relationship. In which case, you get her out of there.

It's sketchy being able to judge when someone is in a bad relationship, and when you're being a douchebag or not.

I knew am interesting girl in college that I was attempting to woo (little coffee dates after classes, going out for icecream randomly, personal birthday presents, etc.), and she told me that she had a boyfriend, who was in drug rehab and she was helping him recover. Upon learning that she was with another guy I told her I wouldn't try to break them up and she sounded surprised and a bit disappointed. I don't know if that was really what she wanted, but meh. I refused to play silly games.

I can think back upon most all of my pathetically failed attempts at "getting" girlfriends in college and I now know (or have a pretty derned good idea) what I could have done to succeed. Mostly been more forward, less shy, and less respectful of a girl's reluctance (it sounds awful, but I can't help but think it true). I was exceedingly polite and respectful and if I got any no-signs, I would drop things promptly. Foolish young women and their desire to test my persistence.

But I'm happy with my wife, my 2 kids, and my life in general and wouldn't go back to change anything in my life ever since that would well lead me down an entirely different path.

I forget where I was going with this.

erik wrote:It's sketchy being able to judge when someone is in a bad relationship, and when you're being a douchebag or not.

This is very true.

It's way easy for me to look at someone like my sisters' relationships - where one guy cheated on her and was verbally abusive, and another special forces guy went nuts and threatened to kill her if she broke up with him - and say she shouldn't be with a guy like that. It's a lot harder for her to see it, though. Both of them guilt-tripped her into thinking that she was being a bitch for not putting up with their behavior.