Bartimaeus

Auf Wiedersehen to Jay Cutler as well, it seems...

Well, if I didn't convert my music into a lower quality format, that would take just about 35 hours straight of copying. That would be annoying, but I don't know, just let it sit in the background for two days. ...On the other hand, I am pretty sure the internal storage device couldn't store a few hundred GBs to begin with, so I'd have to convert it into a lower quality anyways.

I don't think it'd be appropriate to say at most (professional) workplaces, but...you know, I hate to make this example, but it actually has happened several times to me...just random black guys* calling you "cracker" in an informal setting (e.g. on a bus or in a bar or in the streets) is really not that unusual. I don't really mind that much, because it's obviously not meant in an explicitly racist way - more of just a "hello white guy"-type way - but you know, you don't really have an equivalent to call them in return that most people wouldn't find very offensive. I generally just prefer the more friendly "dude" or "man", personally, and really, I think people would be better off if they just stuck to less racially-charged terms in general... *...And a couple of white guys of seemingly...er...lower socioeconomic status, too, I suppose.

Are you not sure like I am because of a double standard in who is able to use the slurs? I mean we did just have a talk about someone who got fired because of "gorilla" and was labeled racist because it was taken in a way that means to belittle said person because of color, but honky, cracker, etc are also used to belittle someone because of being white but it's okay? Is this why we have such an issue with race because we can't agree to make everyone follow the same rules across the board? Well, I'd say that's more of an issue of, as you just said, a double standard, which doesn't really factor into the issue in my mind, per se. Anyone who lightly* uses racial slurs while being offended at others doing the same is just a bit of a hypocrite, that's all. Really, my problem is...you know, I'm not even sure, which I guess kind of sums up how I feel about most political issues, to be honest, which is why I guess I am pretty darned centrist... *Note the "lightly". Not every usage of a racial slur is going to be the same, and because of historical connotations (as well as their original meaning when they were coined), some are automatically interpreted as being worse than others, but still, it should be pretty obvious when a racial slur is actually being used in a negative manner vs. when it's being used lightly.

Well, ignoring the more formal definition of racism simply being "discriminating between races", I wouldn't say racial slurs are always racist...but it seems like they sometimes are, and for that specific scenario of racial slurs being hurled your way for no good reason and in an insulting fashion, it seems like it should qualify...but maybe it shouldn't. I'm not totally sure.

The problem, as I see it, is that "discrimination" has a negative connotation, but the base word itself does not actually imply a negative usage. As such, when you get into discrimination meaning to simply treat someone else differently on the basis of some trait (which is more or less its most wide usage at this point), it starts to cover scenarios where it makes perfect sense to "discriminate" against or between people (for example, "discriminating" between pregnant and non-pregnant women, or recognizing the - positive - differences between different cultures, etc.). It's like we're at the point where we would call something discrimination ONLY if we mean it when we believe something to be unfair or otherwise negative...but that's not what the word literally means, which is where we run into a problem of its usage. This is probably why I don't really like to use the word at all to begin with, in favor of more specific alternatives...but unfortunately, there isn't always a more specific way of describing a situation. We really should stop having words being co-opted - or, if they are co-opted, make sure it's a completely and totally different meaning instead of a relatively close meaning.

Isn't it arguably a bit of both? Unless the racial slurs were not actually based on his race...but if they were, obviously some sort of discrimination between his race and others is being made (which is where the original meaning of the word "discrimination" comes from), which is motivating those specific slurs, right? It's more a term I'd associate with actually depriving someone of something they are entitled to simply because of a trait beyond their control. In other words looks/thoughts not behavior. If it extends the some jerk yelling words the term discrimination begins to lose it's teeth real quick. Like calling apolitical opponent a nazi. There actually is such a thing and it's not a good thing when it's meaning is diluted to extend meaning "everyone who disagrees with me". Sticks an stones and all that. Hmm. Going by the more literal and broader definition of "being able to discriminate a difference between different things", just noticing that someone is black or white would technically fall under that more broad definition, which obviously makes the word rather useless in a social context. On the other hand, going to specifically just "deprivation of something" feels too specific - I feel as though coming up with slurs specific to one's race should really be considered discrimination (in the negative sense) of some kind, but I'm not sure how you would come up with a definition of the word that isn't too broad to also cover other things to the point of absurdity. So, in your opinion, what would you call simple racial slurs - just racism?

Isn't it arguably a bit of both? Unless the racial slurs were not actually based on his race...but if they were, obviously some sort of discrimination between his race and others is being made (which is where the original meaning of the word "discrimination" comes from), which is motivating those specific slurs, right?

How slow are we talking?

Key words being "used to be",

...Uh, actually, a billion is a thousand times a million, not a million times a million. That would be a trillion.

Nobody who has hasn't seen Brazil (but eventually plans to or was ever even thinking about it) should watch that video.

For some reason, I read it as "walking home from work", and so I expected a very different result when you said "I saw the Porsche coming up behind me going at least 120km/h", . Glad there wasn't too much damage.

The only kind of math that I hate in games is percentiles and ugly decimal points. I'm not sure what it is about them, but seeing my chance to hit expressed as "65.1%" just feels so incredibly and unsatisfyingly gamey to me. AD&D abstracted this away a little by using the THAC0, AC, ability bonus, and dice roll systems, which I always loved. The math is still there, and you can still rather easily figure it out if you so wish, but it's hidden away just a little bit in the game under a system which allows me to think of my average damage as being "1D6 + 1" (or 2-7) instead of an average of 4.5, or that I need to roll a 13 or better with my D20 roll combined with my other THAC0 modifiers to beat their AC instead of it being 65% chance or whatever to hit. I like just a little bit of fuzziness and abstraction for numbers, but not too much - the numbers should still be moderately transparent and tied to hard math that you can figure out. (e): So I guess I basically like rational numbers and fractions rather than irrational numbers. Gee, what a surprise: the guy with OCPD doesn't like irrational numbers - that's a shocker.

My HTPC/media streaming PC did the same thing recently. Cleaned it all out, took off my CPU's fan/heatsink as well as my GPU's and remounted them after reapplying thermal paste, and it was much better. I'll probably do the same for my main PC sometime this month...

Yeah, that's how they get you. The smaller ones are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting, but if you try to tip the scales a little more in your favor, you'll just get sick drinking a larger one. That's why it's better to just have someone to share it with.

Math literacy is such a weird thing. There are so many people that I know that struggle understanding basic stuff like ratios. If you're getting a chocolate milkshake, which is more price efficient, $4 for 8oz, or $5.50 for 12oz? A lot of people either don't know how to figure that out besides just making a guess on "what they feel is right", or they don't want to expend the energy/thought to it...or don't think they'll be successful if they do try. So yeah, I can see that definitely being an education problem. (e): Holy awful writing, Batman - fixed this terrible post a little.

Well, friends, the draft is just about over. All sorts of "analysis" will be coming out about how well teams did, but remember: one of the best draft classes by a team in recent history, the Seahawks' 2012 class, was widely panned as being the league-worst at the time. None of this "analysis" means a whit - check back in three years to see how your team really did today.

Well... Some people do enjoy atmosphere and storytelling a lot more than the actual gameplay, popularity of walking sims is a testament of that. And Inside does hold a lot of appeal there, especially if you enjoy showing over telling. To be honest, I didn't get much out of the (unexplained and rather over the top, I felt) atmosphere or "story", either, but I guess different things work for different people.

Kind of mirroring my thoughts about it as well: gameplay-wise, it's just an okay and rather mediocre 2D platformer, and don't really get why people are so incredibly in love with it.

Yes, the test is pretty bad. Vague and/or inexact questions, sweeping statements and broad sentiments that don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny, and totally missing some pretty central issues like capital punishment and immigration and whatever else, it's really just supposed to give you a vague idea of your political leanings than anything else. I gave out only one "strong agree" and "strong disagree" each throughout the entire thing - I don't feel comfortable taking strong stances against such imprecise and undetailed statements. You go into more specific and detailed issues like that political/candidate leaning website that was posted back during election season, and then I can take stronger stances on specific issues.

Too much death. Condolences/sympathies, Tale.

Yes, these sorts of tests are always rather poor and difficult to interpret and answer properly if you consider the questions literally and/or in depth, and lead to many instances of, "This is probably going to push me a certain way even though I know it wouldn't if I could just give more context to my answer..."

Hmm. All just about exactly 60% for the ways I lean more, and ergo all 40% for the ways I lean less.

Yes, it seems the Packers, with the first pick of the 2nd round, wish to trade down a few spots already, and get another 5th or maybe even 4th depending on how desperate a team is and how many slots we go down...