As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

I should have had [chat] prepared!

16465676970101

Posts

  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    I have faith in the folks running the tv show

    blind faith!

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    This conference call is being led by Indian Ben Stein.
    There is not enough coffee for this.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    i think there's less of that than there used to be but there is a fair element of the importance of knowing some old concepts

    for example you have to understand a cartesian view of the mind because its rejection is a fundamental part of most modern theories, etc

    plus a lot of early philosophers had really big ideas that kind of end up surfacing everywhere

    early science was NOT like that!

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
    Podly
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    Podly wrote: »

    a+ would get mario theme tattooed on self

    relatedly, I am mad that I was not accepted to be part of http://ineradicablestain.com/skin-faqs.html

    also what would have made this cooler is if it was based on something unique to the person, like a certain snippet of DNA

    so it would be reading his body, and also his self, and the music any given person would make would be theirs

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    NO, MARTIN. NO. BAD. WE ARE NOT MAKING DANCE WITH DRAGONS INTO THREE SEASONS. THEY WILL CUT THAT SHIT DOWN TO A REASONABLE LENGTH SO WE DON'T ALL DIE OF BOREDOM.

    Get on with the writing.

    honestly books 4 and 5 shouldnt be more than 2 seasons, there's a lot of fat they can cut off

    2 seasons.

    Combine them so it runs in chronological order instead of the half of the story here, half there shit.

    That would work fine.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    override367
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    Podly wrote: »

    a+ would get mario theme tattooed on self

    relatedly, I am mad that I was not accepted to be part of http://ineradicablestain.com/skin-faqs.html

    also what would have made this cooler is if it was based on something unique to the person, like a certain snippet of DNA

    so it would be reading his body, and also his self, and the music any given person would make would be theirs

    are you on acid

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
    Feral
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    sometimes they do that in science too. like they never teach relativity without starting with the subluminous ether and the michaelson morley experiment. and they generally don't get into quantum without walking through neils bohr's series of experiments.

    i guess science has the advantage of saying "we know that this is correct now" for whatever value of "know" you are willing to accept.

    philosophy not so much.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    The man will die of a heart attack before he finishes the story.

    This is an actual worry of mine.

    I made it to Crown of Swords before I figured that Robert Jordan would keep writing increasingly aimless books until he died.

    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »

    a+ would get mario theme tattooed on self

    relatedly, I am mad that I was not accepted to be part of http://ineradicablestain.com/skin-faqs.html

    also what would have made this cooler is if it was based on something unique to the person, like a certain snippet of DNA

    so it would be reading his body, and also his self, and the music any given person would make would be theirs

    are you on acid

    9_6

    Variablespool32
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    NO, MARTIN. NO. BAD. WE ARE NOT MAKING DANCE WITH DRAGONS INTO THREE SEASONS. THEY WILL CUT THAT SHIT DOWN TO A REASONABLE LENGTH SO WE DON'T ALL DIE OF BOREDOM.

    Get on with the writing.

    honestly books 4 and 5 shouldnt be more than 2 seasons, there's a lot of fat they can cut off

    2 seasons.

    Combine them so it runs in chronological order instead of the half of the story here, half there shit.

    That would work fine.

    I have faith in the showrunners because of the stuff they've done before

    DB Weiss is a leal searjent who knows if he looks back he is lost

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    i think there's less of that than there used to be but there is a fair element of the importance of knowing some old concepts

    for example you have to understand a cartesian view of the mind because its rejection is a fundamental part of most modern theories, etc

    plus a lot of early philosophers had really big ideas that kind of end up surfacing everywhere

    early science was NOT like that!

    depends on what you mean by "early"

    i mean galilean reduction is still the central mode of thought in the sciences

    we still use the liebniz notation in calculus

    newton continues to cast a long shadow

    etc etc

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    NO, MARTIN. NO. BAD. WE ARE NOT MAKING DANCE WITH DRAGONS INTO THREE SEASONS. THEY WILL CUT THAT SHIT DOWN TO A REASONABLE LENGTH SO WE DON'T ALL DIE OF BOREDOM.

    Get on with the writing.

    honestly books 4 and 5 shouldnt be more than 2 seasons, there's a lot of fat they can cut off

    The distinctions are gonna get a little difficult, because certain character arcs are going to bleed from books 4/5 into the current season (Bran).

    The rough idea is like this, I think
    Season 4 will finish book 3 and will contain some stuff from 4/5
    Season 5 will be purely books 4/5
    Season 6 will finish books 4/5 and probably start hitting book 6
    Season 7 finishes book 6 and maybe starts material from 7
    Season 8 finishes book 7

    Bobble on
    Dark Raven X
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    sometimes they do that in science too. like they never teach relativity without starting with the subluminous ether and the michaelson morley experiment. and they generally don't get into quantum without walking through neils bohr's series of experiments.

    i guess science has the advantage of saying "we know that this is correct now" for whatever value of "know" you are willing to accept.

    philosophy not so much.

    it probably saves time in the long run to understand as much of the history of thought about something as you can

    because there were a lot of smart people thinking about a topic for a long time and if we think they're wrong now, it's good to know why so that you don't have a eureka moment where you come up with X theory only to find that it's a dumb one that some monk came up with in 1149

    Irond Will
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    alright I am becoming bitter again, which is probably a sign i should go to bed

    u r a kool bro and u shall find kool bro things2do

    trust

    obF2Wuw.png
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular

    Oh brilliant
  • DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    I'll be interested to see what they do, whether they let the series just fade out or if they change things to conclude it a sensible number of seasons.

    Or if they just sack off the books and write about Small-y and Dwarf-y who become private investigators for some reason.

    Why would they let it fade out?

    They will just end it before he does.

    They know the intended endings for the character arcs.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    sometimes they do that in science too. like they never teach relativity without starting with the subluminous ether and the michaelson morley experiment. and they generally don't get into quantum without walking through neils bohr's series of experiments.

    i guess science has the advantage of saying "we know that this is correct now" for whatever value of "know" you are willing to accept.

    philosophy not so much.

    I dunno, like with the aether stuff, in my experience they might mention it as one of the ideas people had, but they don't bother going into why it was wrong. Just why the other stuff was right.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    http://www.wlos.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wlos_-school-bully-concerns-15463.shtml
    Noreen Bruce, Grayson's mom, says Thursday the school asked him to leave the [My Little Pony] bag at home because it had become a distraction and was a "trigger for bullying." Noreen, "saying a lunchbox is a trigger for bullying, is like saying a short skirt is a trigger for rape. It's flawed logic, it doesn't make any sense."

    So Grayson is using a different bag to carry his lunch to school, but he and his mom say they don't believe it's right to force him to leave the My Little Pony bag at home.

    spool32InfamyDeferred
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    Why would they let it fade out?

    They will just end it before he does.

    They know the intended endings for the character arcs.

    there is something about this that I love

    olol get owned original creator you are too fucking slow we are finishing your shit

    yeah you can release your book after or whatever

    prolly put arya's actress's face on the front

    maybe 'adapted from a major television series'

    pls don't plagiarize our dialogue, (c) HBO

    kedinikspool32override367DemonStaceyPowerpuppies
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo We are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourse Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    I'll be interested to see what they do, whether they let the series just fade out or if they change things to conclude it a sensible number of seasons.

    Or if they just sack off the books and write about Small-y and Dwarf-y who become private investigators for some reason.

    Why would they let it fade out?

    They will just end it before he does.

    They know the intended endings for the character arcs.

    Most things just don't get renewed one day, or are cancelled abruptly. It's very hard to work to that uncertainty. I think it's fair to say that most TV series just fade away.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    instead of doing PCR I tend to distill phlogiston from the vitalic humours
    works every tiem
    hth

    FeralkediniksurrealitycheckPodly
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Trying to explain the difference between a PDF with text embedded versus a PDF with an image embedded to somebody

    shoot me now plz

    spool32
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    Oh brilliant
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    I'll be interested to see what they do, whether they let the series just fade out or if they change things to conclude it a sensible number of seasons.

    Or if they just sack off the books and write about Small-y and Dwarf-y who become private investigators for some reason.

    I've got no interest in watching GOT but would watch a show where Tyrion plays the Turner role in a Turner and Hooch TV series set in Orlando.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    The problem is that without any study of the history, you would just getting people giving arguments that someone else had already given. You have to learn the history because you have to learn what's been covered, and what's wrong before you can move into the stuff that's on the edge.

    Also, it's not dumb and wrong. Plato is probably wrong about everything. I mean, just everything he wrote is probably wrong. However, the man was brilliant. To do what he did when he did it took an amazing amount of intelligence. The same with Descartes, or Hume, or Kant. Probably mostly, if not all, wrong. However, brilliant men who advanced thought amazingly. So it's not dumb, but it is wrong. Wrong for all the right reasons.

    The barrier to entry with philosophy is pretty high because philosophy deals mostly with the theoretical. I mean, is there a layman's guide to theoretical physics? Of course not, you need to actually know physics before you can get there. Well, that's where the philosophy is being done with respect to physics, at the theoretical level.

    There are layman's books like "The philosophy of ____" They aren't terrible, and they get people to write about things that are meaningful. In general though, it's an academic discipline. I mean if you just want to pick up something like Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (which I've read a dozen times, and isn't really that hard), you can. But it doesn't have much of a sexy title.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
    Podly
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    i think there's less of that than there used to be but there is a fair element of the importance of knowing some old concepts

    for example you have to understand a cartesian view of the mind because its rejection is a fundamental part of most modern theories, etc

    plus a lot of early philosophers had really big ideas that kind of end up surfacing everywhere

    early science was NOT like that!

    depends on what you mean by "early"

    i mean galilean reduction is still the central mode of thought in the sciences

    we still use the liebniz notation in calculus

    newton continues to cast a long shadow

    etc etc

    there are a few examples, yes

    but the vast majority of scientific fields will cover that stuff very quickly and partially - (calculus being the exception because maths works like philosophy on this front)

    newton is really the huge one. almost all the core scientific ideas we have atm are 19th century onwards,

    biology is entirely late 19th and onwards

    etc

    the other key point is that the context of these ideas is much less important in science because most of them are ideas that make fairly simple statements about the world so they do not need to be attached to history in the same way

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    GRRM needs to stop picking titles that sound like free-to-play social media games

    Deebaseroverride367Atomika
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Clash of Kings
    A FREE multiplayer fantasy game for MEN ONLY
    Warning: your girlfriend might get jealous

    Dark Raven XkedinikGonmunAtomikaInfamyDeferred
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Aioua wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    sometimes they do that in science too. like they never teach relativity without starting with the subluminous ether and the michaelson morley experiment. and they generally don't get into quantum without walking through neils bohr's series of experiments.

    i guess science has the advantage of saying "we know that this is correct now" for whatever value of "know" you are willing to accept.

    philosophy not so much.

    I dunno, like with the aether stuff, in my experience they might mention it as one of the ideas people had, but they don't bother going into why it was wrong. Just why the other stuff was right.

    disproving the aether was the whole point of the michaelson morley experiment. basically it found that the speed of light was the same in opposite directions, which should be impossible if we were moving through the subluminous aether.

    of course, they didn't believe relativity was the solution. people started coming up with ways in which the subluminous aether could be static around the earth, for instance. and then they had arbitrary eddies or aether currents to fit every measurement ever taken. it started getting really complex and then einstein's special relativity presented an elegant solution that fir the data but was also a real fundamental mindfuck.

    this is basically the favorite fable that physics has to tell. if you ever take a mid-level physics class you will definitely hear it.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    instead of doing PCR I tend to distill phlogiston from the vitalic humours
    works every tiem
    hth

    philosopher's corpuscle reverberatory furnace, used to heat the elements at the smallest size as we work toward our dark alchemy

    nod, nod

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Clash of Kings
    A FREE multiplayer fantasy game for MEN ONLY
    Warning: your girlfriend might get jealous

    Since it came out before this stuff was really big who copied who huh?

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    sometimes they do that in science too. like they never teach relativity without starting with the subluminous ether and the michaelson morley experiment. and they generally don't get into quantum without walking through neils bohr's series of experiments.

    i guess science has the advantage of saying "we know that this is correct now" for whatever value of "know" you are willing to accept.

    philosophy not so much.

    it probably saves time in the long run to understand as much of the history of thought about something as you can

    because there were a lot of smart people thinking about a topic for a long time and if we think they're wrong now, it's good to know why so that you don't have a eureka moment where you come up with X theory only to find that it's a dumb one that some monk came up with in 1149

    Skippy....

    Marry me.

    I will be tender with you.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
    skippydumptruck
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    very much doubt it

    I can't think of any examples of a series changing name mid-run

    closest I can come is something like Babylon 5 having season names ... but I don't know how much those were used in the promotional material, even.

    it's something I'd like to see, don't get me wrong.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    The problem is that without any study of the history, you would just getting people giving arguments that someone else had already given. You have to learn the history because you have to learn what's been covered, and what's wrong before you can move into the stuff that's on the edge.

    Meh.

    You can teach old arguments and say, "This is historically important but nobody in the field thinks it's compelling anymore."

    I didn't get that in undergrad philo. We discussed bullshit like the ontological argument at length. The professors were loathe to tell us that a historical argument was wrong or right, because that might prevent us from thinking critically or something.

    All it did was leave me with the impression that philosophers sit around going "Well we don't really know anything, maaaaaaaaaaan."

    Aioua
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Clash of Kings
    A FREE multiplayer fantasy game for MEN ONLY
    Warning: your girlfriend might get jealous

    Dance of Dragons

    A FREE multiplayer rhythm game where you really bring the FIRE!
    Move your Dragon to the beat, see who gets the highest score!

    FeralDeebaser
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Clash of Kings
    A FREE multiplayer fantasy game for MEN ONLY
    Warning: your girlfriend might get jealous

    Play Now My Lord

    Feralkedinik
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    i think there's less of that than there used to be but there is a fair element of the importance of knowing some old concepts

    for example you have to understand a cartesian view of the mind because its rejection is a fundamental part of most modern theories, etc

    plus a lot of early philosophers had really big ideas that kind of end up surfacing everywhere

    early science was NOT like that!

    depends on what you mean by "early"

    i mean galilean reduction is still the central mode of thought in the sciences

    we still use the liebniz notation in calculus

    newton continues to cast a long shadow

    etc etc

    there are a few examples, yes

    but the vast majority of scientific fields will cover that stuff very quickly and partially - (calculus being the exception because maths works like philosophy on this front)

    newton is really the huge one. almost all the core scientific ideas we have atm are 19th century onwards,

    biology is entirely late 19th and onwards

    etc

    the other key point is that the context of these ideas is much less important in science because most of them are ideas that make fairly simple statements about the world so they do not need to be attached to history in the same way

    i see your point that we present science as a set of facts and therefore their pedigree is not necessarily important.

    but really if you are studying science, then understanding the process and pedigree is considered at least as - if not more - important than the scientific facts, since they are ultimately trying to train you to think like a scientist, and not just training you to solve certain types of problems.

    engineers probably get a lot less of the historical context of physics since they're principally being asked just to solve problems given the most applicable formulae, methods and facts.

    i should probably specify that this is my experience with studying physics. bio and chem and geology might be handled generally differently.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    sometimes they do that in science too. like they never teach relativity without starting with the subluminous ether and the michaelson morley experiment. and they generally don't get into quantum without walking through neils bohr's series of experiments.

    i guess science has the advantage of saying "we know that this is correct now" for whatever value of "know" you are willing to accept.

    philosophy not so much.

    it probably saves time in the long run to understand as much of the history of thought about something as you can

    because there were a lot of smart people thinking about a topic for a long time and if we think they're wrong now, it's good to know why so that you don't have a eureka moment where you come up with X theory only to find that it's a dumb one that some monk came up with in 1149

    Skippy....

    Marry me.

    I will be tender with you.

    maybe you should have studied the history of this chat page and then you wouldn't be in this pickle now :0

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    i think what really makes me mad is that i can't write a tenth as well as he can

    aRkpc.gif
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The goddamn ontological argument for God still isn't completely dead.

This discussion has been closed.