20000_Posts

This belongs in a museum

@Big Black Spook and I added some of the Emojis to discord haha, you can't survive without

Haha the monkey is awesome. This looks really cool.

Sign for me plox: 20,000 posts - wasted so much time (but loved it) In red please, with a monkey emoji (this is critical)

Tbh the tech support here was legendary. I learned so much from Naota, Stobbo, and Bob-sama.

Go to Texas A&M, come hang out with all the Sal peeps here.

I'm an electrical engineer. Now I need a job.

Yea had a ton of interviews, biggest was with Siemens but they ended up falling through. It was tough balancing work/school/interviews so unfortunately I wasn't 100% on point. I'm not too worried, I just want to find the right job. I'll probably get something before the summer.

Happy birthday to me.

whoop

I just installed the update today. Took under an hour to get the first boot (on an SSD), then I just used it as normal for the next few hours, restarting every once in a while, and everything is pretty good. Some of the theme changes are kind of annoying, but there's some cool new features. Biggest gripe is that my gestures aren't working 100% right now. Oh, and Windows finally has multiple desktops.

sr mr skeltal

Hahaha 128gb is enough? I've almost filled my 512gb SSDs. GTA 5 needs an ssd and is 60gb. The Asus has a nice IPS display. And you pay the premium for the build quality and cooling.

Just wondering, what's wrong with their cooling? It's just a generic laptop cooling. From my experiences, I've never seen them able to properly keep laptops cool over multiple years. They just easily pick up dust if not cleaned out constantly and since they're not as good as cooling to begin with, they can cook your components if you're not careful. Asus is one of the few companies that has a really good design when it comes to cooling.

Yes I would choose the Asus. I've seen some good things about the MSIs but I've never been a fan of the build quality on them and the cooling has never impressed me.

I have an earlier version of the Asus, it's pretty sweet. Asus has always done an amazing job with cooling which is crucial for a gaming laptop. I was just watching a review on the new Asus today:

Witcher 3 has been pretty cool so far. Damn if it isn't a tough game to run, though even on all lowest settings it still looks pretty great.

So that's how it's gonna be now huh?

I do not suffer from chronic depression, but have had a brief encounter with depression before in a way that differed from ordinary grief/sadness and I've been pretty close with sufferers of clinical depression. One important point to keep in mind is that depression (in addition to other mental health issues) may not necessarily be increasing in prevalence, as much as they are finally being attributed as we become more familiar with psychological disorders. 1. Chronic depression is a mental health disorder that can exhibit itself in consistent depression or swings. It differs from ordinary sadness, I'd personally say it's a feeling of complete overwhelming and helplessness. 2. For me it was a series of life events, but luckily I don't suffer from clinical depression. For those that do, even if you have all the reasons in the world to NOT be depressed, there's nothing you can do since you can't alter how your brain operates just by willing it. 3. Just my interpretation, but artistic genius may come out of depression and is accepted so widely because we all face sadness and potential depression. Someone who is chronically depressed (and has the artistic ability to describe it either in word or paint or some other way) can be very familiar with these feelings and able to describe it in such a way that the rest of us can relate to. I appreciate a good depressing movie or song because it takes me to a feeling that I am somewhat familiar with but do not experience very often.

If you wanted to use this at one of those areas you'd be taking two pieces of plastic that are kind of massive. And if you wanted to use this at home at this point there's no actual advantage to this over normal chargers except that if you just normally charged your phone you'd be able to pick it up without having to take it off the charger. To be honest, I feel like the piece of plastic that holds it off the table is probably the best part. It's like the crappy cherry on top of this badly designed cake You'd just take the ring. The mat and the stand both stay at home. Stupid design on the at-home part, I agree. They should be selling the ring by itself, but why bother when you can get one from China for way cheaper.

Maybe I'm the only one seeing (what I assume is) the intended use of this product, which is that if you already have a mat or are going to an area that has a powermat (found here: http://powermat.com/map/) you can easily charge your phone even if it isn't capable of receiving wireless charging. While they do offer an at-home mat (which is poorly designed), the intent is for use at powermat locations. Surely this doesn't take an electrical engineering degree to understand.

If god were to exist, he would be a tyrant. This hypothesis is not moot, as it can be judged by the descriptions of god which are conveniently found in scripture. The fact that you can be convicted of thought crime, must love and fear the ruler, and that you would not know right from wrong if it weren't for dear leader are all strikingly similar to what we would describe as a tyrant. Satan apparently made a good call questioning the dictatorship. You call it a tyrant because you ignore the love and the reasoning behind the way he judges. I won't disagree that God is an absolute ruler, but what you call a tyrant I call a fair and just ruler. That's why the hypothesis is moot. Sorry, this quote was getting ridiculous, I shortened the part that wasn't relevant. I agree with reep. I think it's really how you look at it. Yeah, God is the main power, no disagreeing with him, he makes all the rules. But classifying him under the definition of tyrant puts him in a category that is riddled with negativity. The definition of tyranny itself has extreme negative connotations. Those going to heaven are those who believe in the greatness and glory of their Lord, so while they have rules imposed on them, these are arguably rules that they desire. You're telling me you can't see people in North Korea saying the exact same thing about their Great and Loving Leader? And when the only other option is burning forever they aren't rules they desire, literally anything will be better. Seems to be setting some low standards. The DPRK is a small, sheltered nation, and I don't think comparing their population to the billions who believe in Christ is fair. The thing I've liked about this debate is the different ideas being thrown around. I was raised Christian, but at the moment I'd consider myself more agnostic, perhaps even atheist (suffice to say, I'm confused about my religious identity). As such, I've been trying to argue through my limited knowledge of the Christian faith Comparing what happens in the mind of a Christian compared to an atheist after death, I think your comment is completely backwards. Setting a low standard? No way! They are setting an (impossibly) high standard that there even IS a life after death! And not only is this unfathomable life eternal, but it aligns perfectly with what they liked back on earth! In my opinion, Christians see going to heaven as a positive thing. They like the rules imposed, because it's rules they would have followed anyway. I don't think they are expecting a low standard by saying there is eternal happiness after death, I think that standard is mind-numbingly insanly high compared to an atheist view that you just rot in the ground. Scale doesn't affect totalitarianism. You are correct that on the scale of billions it is a bit more Orwellian, though. ;) I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. If we make the assumption that there is a God and a Heaven and a Hell, then there are two options: follow the rules (which are said to be right) or burn forever. You have a group of people that will follow the rules faithfully and nothing will stop them. You have another group that wants nothing to do with the rules and will be tortured forever. But there is a third group that reluctantly follows the rules if only because not doing so will be a far worse fate. So by standard, I am saying that it only has to be better than the absolute worst outcome to be viable for 2 out of 3 of the groups. There will be eternal happiness for the first group, but the final group may not find it as perfect as they would wish. And there's nothing they can do about it because saying anything against the Ruler will have you cast into fire and brimstone. Is this not the exact same of every other totalitarian regime? Does Iran not have faithful supporters, people that want nothing but the government to fall, yet also those that follow along just so they don't face punishment? I reemphasize: a celestial dictatorship. Edit: I also do appreciate that you're actually putting forth thoughtful replies on both sides of the argument. ;)

If god were to exist, he would be a tyrant. This hypothesis is not moot, as it can be judged by the descriptions of god which are conveniently found in scripture. The fact that you can be convicted of thought crime, must love and fear the ruler, and that you would not know right from wrong if it weren't for dear leader are all strikingly similar to what we would describe as a tyrant. Satan apparently made a good call questioning the dictatorship. You call it a tyrant because you ignore the love and the reasoning behind the way he judges. I won't disagree that God is an absolute ruler, but what you call a tyrant I call a fair and just ruler. That's why the hypothesis is moot. Sorry, this quote was getting ridiculous, I shortened the part that wasn't relevant. I agree with reep. I think it's really how you look at it. Yeah, God is the main power, no disagreeing with him, he makes all the rules. But classifying him under the definition of tyrant puts him in a category that is riddled with negativity. The definition of tyranny itself has extreme negative connotations. Those going to heaven are those who believe in the greatness and glory of their Lord, so while they have rules imposed on them, these are arguably rules that they desire. You're telling me you can't see people in North Korea saying the exact same thing about their Great and Loving Leader? And when the only other option is burning forever they aren't rules they desire, literally anything will be better. Seems to be setting some low standards.

I am told by theists that once in heaven, evil thoughts are not allowed. That is mind control and that is tyranny. Paul also spoke of only two options for us. Slaved to sin or slaved to God. As to not being able to compare earth to heaven. you forgotten that God is to bring his government to earth at the end times? When he does because of what his bible says, women and gays will never have equality nor will we ever be able to criticize anything God decrees. That is scary as he would have us stone our own unruly children as well as many more. Do you want his tyranny here on earth? Regards DL We must have different ideas then. I've never heard that evil thoughts are disallowed, but I've heard that there is no reason for evil thinking in heaven. Even if you're right (which you're not, because it's completely open to interpretation) that doesn't mean it's tyranny. Paul's quotation is a different problem to tackle. You're taking his words too literally - in one thread previously you argued that people use the words of the Bible to construe their own opinions. Who is to say Paul means that we would literally become slaves of God? In all the sermons I've been a part of, the term "slave of God" isn't meant in a derogatory sense. I have much doubt that God, in all his magnificence, has need for slaves, so let's not look at it so literally, right? It simply means that we are preachers of his word, prophets of his greatness. He's not whipping us with a stick if we choose to disobey - wait, didn't you already say that your mind is controlled in heaven? Doesn't that mean we, by His design, cannot disobey? Moving on.. I still believe it's unfair to compare earth to heaven, but perhaps I should have worded it clearer in the first post. Politics on earth shouldn't influence politics in heaven. BUT, politics in heaven should and definitely impact politics on earth. (Be that moral politics, government politics, etc). When God is said to bring his governance to earth in the end times, he's doing so for the sake of everyone. He's literally saving everyone. That's hardly something to be disagreeable with. As for your final point, I still stand by my belief that his rule isn't a tyranny. Look up the definition for that term, it doesn't apply to the Christian faith in my mind. It's a tyranny in the sense that the ruler of a celestial dictatorship is a tyrant. I don't agree with not having a say in how I will be governed/ruled somehow I'll be for an eternity. Eh, we're arguing about conjecture here, but theoretically shouldn't those who go to heaven be those of a faith who wouldn't mind the rules imposed on them, and wouldn't see them as such? When does a law stop being a law if everyone is willingly following it? Doesn't that just make it just a "moral" again, no law needed since breaking that moral won't happen? Maybe I'm too tired, I'll revisit this later. Well the options are follow a tyrant or go to hell. I'm sure there's plenty of people that would follow something if only because the view the alternative to be worse (see the Paschal's Wager thread). Morals and laws are independent, almost any law can be broken and morally justified. Additionally, morality is a very gray area and requires questioning and discussion as is found in Western philosophies. Living in a world where everything is already morally decided strips you of all freedom and ability. I am told by theists that once in heaven, evil thoughts are not allowed. That is mind control and that is tyranny. Paul also spoke of only two options for us. Slaved to sin or slaved to God. As to not being able to compare earth to heaven. you forgotten that God is to bring his government to earth at the end times? When he does because of what his bible says, women and gays will never have equality nor will we ever be able to criticize anything God decrees. That is scary as he would have us stone our own unruly children as well as many more. Do you want his tyranny here on earth? Regards DL We must have different ideas then. I've never heard that evil thoughts are disallowed, but I've heard that there is no reason for evil thinking in heaven. Even if you're right (which you're not, because it's completely open to interpretation) that doesn't mean it's tyranny. Paul's quotation is a different problem to tackle. You're taking his words too literally - in one thread previously you argued that people use the words of the Bible to construe their own opinions. Who is to say Paul means that we would literally become slaves of God? In all the sermons I've been a part of, the term "slave of God" isn't meant in a derogatory sense. I have much doubt that God, in all his magnificence, has need for slaves, so let's not look at it so literally, right? It simply means that we are preachers of his word, prophets of his greatness. He's not whipping us with a stick if we choose to disobey - wait, didn't you already say that your mind is controlled in heaven? Doesn't that mean we, by His design, cannot disobey? Moving on.. I still believe it's unfair to compare earth to heaven, but perhaps I should have worded it clearer in the first post. Politics on earth shouldn't influence politics in heaven. BUT, politics in heaven should and definitely impact politics on earth. (Be that moral politics, government politics, etc). When God is said to bring his governance to earth in the end times, he's doing so for the sake of everyone. He's literally saving everyone. That's hardly something to be disagreeable with. As for your final point, I still stand by my belief that his rule isn't a tyranny. Look up the definition for that term, it doesn't apply to the Christian faith in my mind. It's a tyranny in the sense that the ruler of a celestial dictatorship is a tyrant. I don't agree with not having a say in how I will be governed/ruled somehow I'll be for an eternity. This whole line of debate is moot though, because either God is a tyrant or He is not, and either you believe He is one, or you don't. The first can't be proven either way and for the second we'd need to start throwing scripture around and I don't think anybody benefits from that :P If god were to exist, he would be a tyrant. This hypothesis is not moot, as it can be judged by the descriptions of god which are conveniently found in scripture. The fact that you can be convicted of thought crime, must love and fear the ruler, and that you would not know right from wrong if it weren't for dear leader are all strikingly similar to what we would describe as a tyrant. Satan apparently made a good call questioning the dictatorship.

I am told by theists that once in heaven, evil thoughts are not allowed. That is mind control and that is tyranny. Paul also spoke of only two options for us. Slaved to sin or slaved to God. As to not being able to compare earth to heaven. you forgotten that God is to bring his government to earth at the end times? When he does because of what his bible says, women and gays will never have equality nor will we ever be able to criticize anything God decrees. That is scary as he would have us stone our own unruly children as well as many more. Do you want his tyranny here on earth? Regards DL We must have different ideas then. I've never heard that evil thoughts are disallowed, but I've heard that there is no reason for evil thinking in heaven. Even if you're right (which you're not, because it's completely open to interpretation) that doesn't mean it's tyranny. Paul's quotation is a different problem to tackle. You're taking his words too literally - in one thread previously you argued that people use the words of the Bible to construe their own opinions. Who is to say Paul means that we would literally become slaves of God? In all the sermons I've been a part of, the term "slave of God" isn't meant in a derogatory sense. I have much doubt that God, in all his magnificence, has need for slaves, so let's not look at it so literally, right? It simply means that we are preachers of his word, prophets of his greatness. He's not whipping us with a stick if we choose to disobey - wait, didn't you already say that your mind is controlled in heaven? Doesn't that mean we, by His design, cannot disobey? Moving on.. I still believe it's unfair to compare earth to heaven, but perhaps I should have worded it clearer in the first post. Politics on earth shouldn't influence politics in heaven. BUT, politics in heaven should and definitely impact politics on earth. (Be that moral politics, government politics, etc). When God is said to bring his governance to earth in the end times, he's doing so for the sake of everyone. He's literally saving everyone. That's hardly something to be disagreeable with. As for your final point, I still stand by my belief that his rule isn't a tyranny. Look up the definition for that term, it doesn't apply to the Christian faith in my mind. It's a tyranny in the sense that the ruler of a celestial dictatorship is a tyrant. I don't agree with not having a say in how I will be governed/ruled somehow I'll be for an eternity.