laifuthegrea

Male
from Jericho, NY

  • Activity

    • 7 years ago

      laifuthegrea
    • 7 years ago

      laifuthegrea
    • 7 years ago

      laifuthegrea
    • 7 years ago

      laifuthegrea
    • The Purpose of Halo Rings

      in Forums > The Purpose of Halo Rings | Follow this topic

      laifuthegrea

      I'm not sure about the purpose of the Halo rings. From what I understand, they kill sentient life to starve the Flood while leaving people in shield worlds to wait it out and restart civilizations. But if they don't fire the rings, what could possibly happen that would be worse than what the rings actually do?

      There's a chance of biological balance, the predator-prey populations regulating each other.
      There's a chance that they find a way to kill the flood and so civilizations continues as normal. According to Halo wiki, it's been done before.
      Otherwise the flood kills everyone and starves anyways.

      It seems kind of like a roundabout solution. Wouldn't it make more sense just to send people to shield worlds and wait for one of the three previous scenarios rather than killing the entire galaxy?

      10 replies

    • 7 years ago

      laifuthegrea
    • Wisdom Teeth

      7 years ago

      laifuthegrea

      Getting my 2 top wisdom teeth pulled was an interesting experience. I had just come back from cross country practice, and so was all sweaty. My hair was wet, face was read, and neck was slimy. My shoes were covered in dirt from running on the wet grass for 3 miles. I had to go the the bathroom, wash my face, wipe myself off, go outside and clean off my shoes, before sitting down, suddenly having to go to the bathroom again, and getting stared at for going to the bathroom twice in 5 minutes (everyone thinking i had a bowel problem). 45 minutes after the scheduled appointment times, i was called in. I sat in the dental chair for another 30 minutes as the dentist treated another patient, a girl from college. I was already nervous about getting the teeth pulled. Being 14, my teeth haven't actually grown out yet, and so the dentist would have to take a knife to my gums to expose it, then pull it into an upright position (they were growing at a 45 degree angle, getting stuck with the adjacent molar, preventing it from being straightened by my braces), and finally pull it out from deep inside my mouth. It didn't help that the girl in the other room, also getting a tooth pulled (not wisdom teeth, just one with a cavity) was screaming and crying despite being described as "numb as can be" by the doctor. He finally got to me, numbed my mouth, left for another 15 minutes to torture the other girl, then came back to me. A doctor and a nurse advanced on me, wicked looking instruments in their hand. I closed my eyes. I didn't feel any of the sharp pain of cutting, nor that of pulling. I did, however, feel the stretching of my cheek as they attempted to fit 5 tools into one corner of my mouth. I seriously thought it would rip, especially as he tried to get more leverage by pulling it downwards, toward my body. I also felt the pressure as he pushed my tooth with all its might to make it upright. That was unbearable, but so far, no screamng. I felt him take a clamp tool and essentially unscrew the tooth, twisting it counter-clockwise with my wisdom tooth in its grip. This excruciating process occured twice, before my mother and i left with a prescription for painkillers and stiches in my cheek and gums. So far no soreness. Today, i sit here with jaws feeling like they were ripped apart and sewed together, swollen cheeks, and bad breath (i'm not supposed to brush my teeth, or even rinse and spit), scrabbling deperately for the bottle of painkillers supplied to me. What a delightful experience!

    • Roger Ebert: Video Games Cannot be Art

      7 years ago

      laifuthegrea

      Roger Ebert actually made a change to his statement, saying instead that no one alive will ever live long enough to see a Video Game as art. I say, don't change your opinion. From what I've seen, he doesn't believe his statement, and only changed it due to the negative backlash. Nevertheless, while I agree that video games aren't art, I really don't believe that they can't be. One point that Ebert makes is that you can win a game. I have to disagree. At this point, in many games, "winning" is no more than completing the story. In that sense, one can also "win" a film. The way I see it, art is a method of expressing oneself. A way of expressing feelings, ideas, or observations. Many people think video games are already art because of good stories or beautiful art design. That can make the story art (though i don'tknow of any games with an artistic" story), or the visuals art, but the game itself is not art. Video games would have to use elements unique to the medium for the expression f the story. Here, I turn to Bioshock. Bioshock uses certain mechanics as symbolism. The choice of the killing or saving the little sisters is a metaphor for a long term and short term choice. Bioshock has many other examples of symbolism and representations, but they're disjointed, irrelevant, and amount ultimately to nothing (though its story ripped from a previous game by the developer is very good and invokesfeeling). But it shows that game mechanics can be symbols, something that can't be found in other mediums. Also, in Bioshock, the backstory is not given, you have to find it yourself using audiologs. That's a unique way of perpetuating story to players, that other mediums cannot do. Another aspect of video games that distinguishes it from other mediums and also can help it as an art form is immersion. The fact that one controls a character and also that it can be experienced in the first person can keep a person feeling as if they were in a game. The best example is Half-Life 2. Through the scripted sequences, first person perspective, and all around realism, the game keeps players feeling like its world lives, breathes, and exists. I'm certainly not saying it's art, as the game's purpose is really to entertain with its challenges and solving them. A better example would be the Super 8 interactive trailer included in Portal 2. Super 8 is not art, but it is a film, and this trailer shows that a film could be converted into a video game pretty well without becoming mindless. Make an entire film like that, one that has an artistic message, force players to find their own way through the story, create choices for them to take, and don't make into a game focused on fighting and you could very well have a video game that really is art.

      Ultimately, the biggest inhibition for video games being art is the reason that people play them. It's the reason that the best selling films are usually mindless action flicks. People want fun, not art, and this is all the more present in games. There's good reason for Ebert to have the opinion he does, especially if he's not big on gaming. No one will probably read this but really, this is why I think that video games can certainly be a unique and powerful art form.

    • Chromebook

      8 years ago

      laifuthegrea

      Let's start this off by saying that I absolutely love google and its products. They out out some of the best software and websites out there, and have an admirable "corporate culture". The reason I tell you this is because it may infleuence my opinion on the chromebook. Nevertheless, I'm still going to say that I think the chromebook is a bright idea.

      Lots of people are hating on Google's new chromebook. It's often said that it's overpriced, has limited functionality, and all around not worth it. However, most of the same complaints were also remarked about the iPad. Yet, loads of people still bought it and later said they loved it. Let's take a look at why people love the iPad.
      1. Lightweight. In comparison, the chromebook may seem heavy, but the difference is almost impercetible in practice.
      2. Fast startup. The iPad can be put to sleep and woken up immediately. Same with a chromebook, and the boot up time is very similar as well.
      3. Battery life. The iPad is advertised as having 10 hours of battery life. Having used an iPad frequently, I can say that that's only for web browsing, and not video playing. Meanwhile, the chromebook has 8.5 hours of battery, and that is for video playing. Very similar.
      4. The web. iPad is able to connect to at@t's 3G network from anywhere, and boasts a relatively fast mobile web browser. The chromebook can connect to the significantly superior verizon 3G network and boasts the fastest web browser for ANY device.
      5. Apps. The iPad app store is huge and can get you an app to do a wide range of things. However, the apps generally aren't meant to replace desktop apps. Meanwhile, chrome's web apps often compete with commercial windows apps. Google docs may not be quite as food as office, but it's worlds apart from iworks. Aviary image editor is a full on editor like photoshop, something you can't find on the iPad. Many apps, particularly productivity apps like google docs are easier and faster to use with a keyboard and touchpad as well.
      6. Ease of use. The iPad doesn't require defragging or other maintenance like a windows pc. However, the chromebook offers essentially the same thing.

      That being said, the chromebook isn't perfect. Many problems are evident with the os, though mostly not deal breakers. The hardware currently available is weak. The samsung series 5 chromebook isn't even able to play 1080p YouTube videos. Another problem is with google docs, specifically its lack of features. It's a great free suite and shines with collaboration, but it just doesn't have the features that power users would want (95% of people won't care). The most glaring issue is it's inability to be used offline, though with 3G one probably won't run into that very often. Many people also say that its lack of storage is a problem, but they're wrong. Then chromebook has 16gb of local storage, the same as a tablet.

      All in all, the chromebook isn't as bad as critics say it is. It's more useful than a tablet, particularly for productivity, and costs at most the same amount. While there are many problems, most will disappear as the software matures, while others will be solved by buying a better model.

    • Music

      8 years ago

      laifuthegrea

      Pop music. A very simple, very fitting term for a major genre of music. However, I personally cannot comprehend one thing about it. Why are the songs that are popular, so popular? Why do people listen to them? One can only wonder.

      Music is an art form, a form of self-expression. It begins with a feeling. An emotion, a thought, an experience that is important to the mind. That feeling is turned into notes, harmony, transformed into a song. Though the directing of rhythm, melody, lyrics, and more one can illustrate what they feel in a beautiful song. So what is pop music?

      Pop music is the most un-intelligent, self-centered, and uninteresting feelings being expressed. It's the product of people utterly dedicated to hedonistic indulgence. And everyone loves it. Of course not all pop music is like this, and not all pop music is terrible either. Songs like "Pocketful of Sunshine" are very enjoyable and also carry a good message behind them. It's just the majority, the songs that are the most profitable and therefore the most common that piss me off. Almost all of pop music does one or more of these four things.

      1. Exploits eroticism far too much. It's like these songs are written by hormone ridden, horny teenagers. Some even acknowledge this fact (A certain Katy Perry song springs to mind) shamelessly.
      2. Is focused on partying/drinking. Why should we care? It's a reckless behavior that is completely unproductive. Utterly ridiculous that it's the subject of a song.
      3. Involves the praise of oneself. I am the best, no one else is better than I am, I am the KING!
      4. Makes no sense at all. There is not coherence at all, just a collection of unrelated sentences thrown together just to rhyme.
      Lets compare this to some other genres. The lyrics of rock often deals with political or social issues (ex: Hotel California). Jazz usually expresses happiness, delight, or sadness (ex: What a Wonderful World). Both of these are also common expressions of love. These love songs though are a sharp contrast to pop's hypersexualization of love. Instead of "Touch My Body" there's "Can't Buy Me Love". Hip-Hop lyrics are generally used to illustrate the experience of poverty and hardship, as well as the associated anger. All respectable themes, especially by comparison.

      Now the lyrics may be bad, but the underlying sound is generally even more awful. By itself, absolutely no feeling is evoked by pop music without lyrics. The melody and rhythm is almost interchangeable between songs. The voices are oftentimes heavily edited, almost beyond recognition of being human.
      Other genres are actually pleasant to listen to without lyrics, and rely much less on them. Classical in particular usually doesn't even have any lyrics. It expresses emotions entirely with the composition, and does it very well. 

      It just seems to me that pop is immature. It's as if a stupid teenager wrote it, a talentless performer executed it, and a computer wizard tried his best to make it sound decent. Obviously other genres have their share of bad music as well. But it's only in pop that the bad music is far more popular than the good. It confounds the mind!

  • Comments (0)

  • Questions

    No questions have been answered yet