I liked it. I thought it was touching and it capped off most if not all of the themes of the series in a pretty good way. From all the hate, I was expecting something far worse. I went with the destroy ending, at least for my first game, due to the concern of sort of subtle indoctrination taking place with the synthesis ending, and because I felt like Shepard deserved to live long enough to receive a very long list of apologies and thanks. Even if synthesis is the "final evolution" of life, we're not in any rush to get there. And even accepting the premise that synthetics were bound to arise again and conflict would emerge, I reject the premise that peace and eventual synthesis could not occur at a later date. I felt bad about wiping out the geth and EDI. , but an ending without some sort of compromise is a bit too Disney, isn't it? Anyways, I think people must have had their expectations dialed up a bit too high.
5 years agoPatawan
1. The Supreme Court oral argument from last Tuesday regarding the individual mandate of Obamacare is as philosophically fascinating to me as Plato's Apology, and it even had a few chuckles. If it were up to me, a cleaned up, foot-noted version of it would become part of the curriculum in every school.
2. This new journal system is terrible. Why the hell does it take so long for the text to appear when I'm writing? This is just silly.
3. Voters for Hulu's "Best in Show" contest are idiots.
Psych is better than Beavis and Butthead? I don't think so. Of course, I've never watched Psych for more than a minute because all these cells in my brain threaten to mutiny if I ever do so. Granted, it's not like B&B is high brow, but the only thing Psych has going for it is an unusually fitting title. People turn on their TVs expecting to be entertained, and instead they get "Psych." It's rare to see such truth in advertising.
I have to assume Sons of Anarchy beat Justified because it won over the meth voters and fags (I am, of course, using the new definition of that term as declared in South Park).
By the way, where the hell is South Park? They know that in a real competition, their pathetic lineups would be ass-raped, so they didn't include shows from networks not participating in Hulu. Fucking pansy cowards. If you can't do something right, don't do it at all.
I would rather shoot myself in the dick than watch Modern Family, and the fact that it beat out both Archer and It's Always Sunny just makes me want to aim higher.
Just when I think I couldn't hold less respect for the tastes of the average person out there, I see crap like this. Now I'm starting to think freedom of expression should be something a person has to earn.
4. This is the number after three. C'mon, you should know this.
6 years agoPatawan
Wow ... someone forwarded this to me. These are all snippets from real US court cases. Enjoy.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget..
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ.
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death…
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them... The live ones put up too much of a fight.
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
6 years agoPatawan
If we ever got to meet God and ask why we are here, the answer would probably be, "That's what you were supposed to tell me. What the hell have I been paying you for?!"
I think it's time we incorporate Isaac Asimov's 3 laws in to the Google search algorithm.
That is all.
6 years agoPatawan
I love what this photo says about modern war. Everyone is watching the video feed except the military officer, who is doing ??? on a computer. Also, the picture itself reflects the role of propaganda: it tells you nothing but what they want you to know. The screens are off, photo blurred, walls blank. Absolute control of information. They also issued instructions with the photo that it is not to be altered before being published by media sources.
Anyways, according to Jewish media sources, Hillary Clinton is obscene and must not appear in photographs:
Lulz. I just love this so much. It's one of those situations where it's not about who is wrong, it's about who is more wrong. The White House for attempting to control information in an arguably unconstitutional (and certainly inappropriate) way, or this newspaper for clinging to concepts of modesty that have no place in this millenium?
6 years agoPatawan
6 years agoPatawan
Here's a conversation between philosophers, summarizing what each has brought to the table of human thought. Feel free to pitch in.
I think this sucks.
Why must this suck?
We can figure out why this sucks.
People must be molded not to suck.
Let's just try to make things suck less.
What he said.
But it's okay to suck in the meantime.
And we should still try to learn why we suck so much.
You people have forgotten what it means to try and suck less. By the way, let's kill Jews.
I don't think things have always sucked this much ...
Yes, they have. In fact, things sucked even more.
Hey, how come you get to go twice?
Because you're horribly wrong.
Things will suck less for you if you get me a job.
To suck is the power of altering realms of thought in another's conscious, and allows for enhancement in the positive direction by the concoction of needlessly abstract definitions delivered with flamboyant vigor.
If I work at it, I can suck a little less than that guy.
If we all suck together in just the right way, we will magically stop sucking.
People should be allowed to suck however they want.
This really sucks, mostly because of you people.
Things will suck less later.
7 years agoPatawan
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
As globalization has increased, and inter-state commerce in the US became the norm, the Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, allowed this Congressional power to extend to anything that has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. So, for example, growing wheat derived from your own seeds, on your land, for your own use, may have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, thus Congress can regulate it. This clause of the Constitution now effectively reads:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
So now, Congress may regulate virtually any "economic activity" whatsoever. In order to justify the individual mandate of Obamacare, the recent decisions of trial courts upholding its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause have been forced to argue that economic inactivity (in this case, not buying health insurance) is an economic activity.
I'll repeat that: economic inactivity is an economic activity. This is the world we will live in if the individual mandate of Obamacare is found constitutional by the Supreme Court.
In order to bring light on what exactly that would mean, here's a non-exhaustive list of "economically inactive" decisions which Congress could theoretically control under this "interpretation" of the Constitution:
Not buying a car or other mode of transportation.
Not buying milk.
Not buying life insurance.
Not joining a gym.
Not building on undeveloped land you own.
Not selling mineral rights to land you own.
Not renovating your up-to-code home.
Not buying tickets to the state lottery.
Not donating to charities.
No questions have been answered yet