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.
Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!
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
All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.
A Dance of Dragon Swords
Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War
I think people give Martin way too much shit for repeating phrases/words in his books
WHERE DO WHORES GO etc
he's a fuckin great writer and his ridiculous attention to detail with houses and sigils and family histories and grievances is really top notch, and I just love the fact that his biggest complaint about the TV series is that nobody wears their helmets in battle
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.
There is a necessary balance between conceptual, critical-thinking-oriented education
vs rote memorization of facts and procedural steps
I don't know how many educational programs get the balance right, but I do know that going all-in on one approach or the other leaves the subject incomplete
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Stopped in to talk to my boss about my time off requests -- it looks like it's all good but he just never actually got them -- took a look at our time off requesting system
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
All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.
A Dance of Dragon Swords
Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War
Epic Legends of the Heirarchs: The Elemenstor Saga
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.
I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.
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
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
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.
most of the time you are just learning all the shit you gotta know in most of these areas. biology is a huge ass field
sure you will have lessons where they go more philosophy of science but when you're doing like 1321321 lectures on protein structure nobody really gives a shit unless the old stuff is relevant. the imaginary hypothetico-deductive model of inquiry tends to come up during practicals or in the occasional more discursive course element, whereas philosophy is literally just the discursive element!
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."
That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.
I once told my dissertation adviser that I didn't think that anyone could actually picture a contradiction.
It only took him like 10 minutes to show me why I was wrong.
Some historical arguments will get the "it's not right or wrong" treatment. A lot of ethical and political stuff gets that treatment. Because a lot of those are still open questions, or they aren't entirely wrong, but you could spend a whole graduate seminar detailing what is right and what is wrong in them.
That's another thing to. Some of this stuff is so dense that you can spend an entire 6 months talking about nothing but one work from a given writer. I spent one semester taking a political philosophy class where we did Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Kant's Metaphysics of Morals (which is where a lot of his political theory is, strangely). We could have easily cut one of those works out and just done one of them. You can't get that complexity at the undergraduate level.
"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
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
There is a necessary balance between conceptual, critical-thinking-oriented education
vs rote memorization of facts and procedural steps
I don't know how many educational programs get the balance right, but I do know that going all-in on one approach or the other leaves the subject incomplete
i ultimately decided against pursuing a career in physics because i realized that i really liked understanding how things worked but couldn't care less about performing experiments.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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.
Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!
Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.
Deebaser on
+3
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
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.
Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!
Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.
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
All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.
A Dance of Dragon Swords
Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War
Epic Legends of the Heirarchs: The Elemenstor Saga
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.
But I mean they plan to have 8 seasons. And they have an ending already.
So I was saying in this situation why would they not finish when there is already a complete story they are following?
I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.
I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.
I don't think that's true. I think that if you approached any philosopher about a particular area, they could give you a book to read that would give a cross section about what people are going on about. Except philosophy of language. I wouldn't know where to start there. Because it's highly technical, and you have to learn a bunch of terms and almost a new way of thinking before any of it makes sense. Like, when I look at just blocks of code, I imagine it's the sensation that people have when looking at serious philosophy of language. My jaw just goes slack a bit and I don't understand what's in front of me.
"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
That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.
I recognize that my experience is not indicative of the field.
I'm just describing how my undergrad was taught.
It was entirely my exposure to philo people after undergrad (partly through here, partly through friends) that I discovered that philo was actually doing interesting things.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I don't feel well : (
fuck gendered marketing
+2
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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.
Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!
Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.
but bro, it's like a metaphor or something
Is it a metaphor for how much harder it would have been to market on HBO with that silly name?
That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.
I recognize that my experience is not indicative of the field.
I'm just describing how my undergrad was taught.
It was entirely my exposure to philo people after undergrad (partly through here, partly through friends) that I discovered that philo was actually doing interesting things.
i only ever took one philosophy course
it was jurisprudence/ philosophy of law
i was super jazzed
but the professor really just wanted to teach philosophy of feminism
so after an quick touch on st augustine we proceeded directly to a semester of catherine mackinnon and andrea dworkin
worst class ever
what a dick
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
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.
Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!
Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.
but bro, it's like a metaphor or something
Is it a metaphor for how much harder it would have been to market on HBO with that silly name?
Stopped in to talk to my boss about my time off requests -- it looks like it's all good but he just never actually got them -- took a look at our time off requesting system
I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.
I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.
I don't think that's true. I think that if you approached any philosopher about a particular area, they could give you a book to read that would give a cross section about what people are going on about. Except philosophy of language. I wouldn't know where to start there. Because it's highly technical, and you have to learn a bunch of terms and almost a new way of thinking before any of it makes sense. Like, when I look at just blocks of code, I imagine it's the sensation that people have when looking at serious philosophy of language. My jaw just goes slack a bit and I don't understand what's in front of me.
Hmm, okay then.
Do you have one for why physicalism is wrong? ^_^
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
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.
Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
Get dunked on
+2
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
GoT s3
I love rewatching shows, especially - obviously - ones I like that much.
but I cannot bring myself to look at any got with Rob Stark in it. that shit was heartbreaking. I now feel silly for not expecting something but I didn't at all.
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.
most of the time you are just learning all the shit you gotta know in most of these areas. biology is a huge ass field
sure you will have lessons where they go more philosophy of science but when you're doing like 1321321 lectures on protein structure nobody really gives a shit unless the old stuff is relevant. the imaginary hypothetico-deductive model of inquiry tends to come up during practicals or in the occasional more discursive course element, whereas philosophy is literally just the discursive element!
yeah i guess that makes sense. if you are studying physics in a university you're not really studying any live fields until your doctoral dissertation generally. all of the discoveries in physics are in high-energy subatomics and occasional bits of astro, and those aren't really of general interest and of zero practical application.
most physicists end up in engineering-oriented fields by grad school. things like semiconductor doping or that kind of thing probably.
I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.
I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.
Well you aren't really walking away with a general understanding so much as you're being introduced to a novel concept.
I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.
I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.
Well you aren't really walking away with a general understanding so much as you're being introduced to a novel concept.
sssssssssssh let me have this :P
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
The breadth of our coverage will be much clearer at this new version of FiveThirtyEight, which is launching Monday under the auspices of ESPN. We’ve expanded our staff from two full-time journalists to 20 and counting. Few of them will focus on politics exclusively; instead, our coverage will span five major subject areas — politics, economics, science, life and sports.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
i can't tell if i'm actually naturally intelligent or just really good with language or if they are the same thing
with few exceptions, everything we know is contained within the language
I strongly disagree, unless we use a particularly expansive definition of 'language' that I would then take issue with.
care to elaborate?
Well, I'm projecting a little bit from conversations I've had before.
But let's start with an easy example. Imagine the Mona Lisa. You know what the Mona Lisa looks like. Is the knowledge of what the Mona Lisa looks like "contained within the language?"
Or, for a trollish philosophy of mind example (<3 podly), colorblind Mary. Colorblind Mary knows everything that can be conveyed linguistically about the color blue. However, I would argue that she doesn't know everything any human could possibly know about the color blue because she cannot know what it is like to see the color blue.
in what other way could i prove that i have seen the mona lisa than through language?
Posts
Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!
All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.
A Dance of Dragon Swords
Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War
WHERE DO WHORES GO etc
he's a fuckin great writer and his ridiculous attention to detail with houses and sigils and family histories and grievances is really top notch, and I just love the fact that his biggest complaint about the TV series is that nobody wears their helmets in battle
There is a necessary balance between conceptual, critical-thinking-oriented education
vs rote memorization of facts and procedural steps
I don't know how many educational programs get the balance right, but I do know that going all-in on one approach or the other leaves the subject incomplete
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
you're goddamn right ADP
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Epic Legends of the Heirarchs: The Elemenstor Saga
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.
I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.
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
most of the time you are just learning all the shit you gotta know in most of these areas. biology is a huge ass field
sure you will have lessons where they go more philosophy of science but when you're doing like 1321321 lectures on protein structure nobody really gives a shit unless the old stuff is relevant. the imaginary hypothetico-deductive model of inquiry tends to come up during practicals or in the occasional more discursive course element, whereas philosophy is literally just the discursive element!
That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.
I once told my dissertation adviser that I didn't think that anyone could actually picture a contradiction.
It only took him like 10 minutes to show me why I was wrong.
Some historical arguments will get the "it's not right or wrong" treatment. A lot of ethical and political stuff gets that treatment. Because a lot of those are still open questions, or they aren't entirely wrong, but you could spend a whole graduate seminar detailing what is right and what is wrong in them.
That's another thing to. Some of this stuff is so dense that you can spend an entire 6 months talking about nothing but one work from a given writer. I spent one semester taking a political philosophy class where we did Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Kant's Metaphysics of Morals (which is where a lot of his political theory is, strangely). We could have easily cut one of those works out and just done one of them. You can't get that complexity at the undergraduate level.
"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
i ultimately decided against pursuing a career in physics because i realized that i really liked understanding how things worked but couldn't care less about performing experiments.
Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.
A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.
but bro, it's like a metaphor or something
twitch.tv/tehsloth
http://www.amazon.com/Penny-Arcade-Legends-Magic-Sword/dp/1593075413
do any of you have any knowledge about jfreechart?
is it the best for easy-peasy java plotting?
if no then what is the best?
But I mean they plan to have 8 seasons. And they have an ending already.
So I was saying in this situation why would they not finish when there is already a complete story they are following?
I don't think that's true. I think that if you approached any philosopher about a particular area, they could give you a book to read that would give a cross section about what people are going on about. Except philosophy of language. I wouldn't know where to start there. Because it's highly technical, and you have to learn a bunch of terms and almost a new way of thinking before any of it makes sense. Like, when I look at just blocks of code, I imagine it's the sensation that people have when looking at serious philosophy of language. My jaw just goes slack a bit and I don't understand what's in front of me.
"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
I recognize that my experience is not indicative of the field.
I'm just describing how my undergrad was taught.
It was entirely my exposure to philo people after undergrad (partly through here, partly through friends) that I discovered that philo was actually doing interesting things.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Is it a metaphor for how much harder it would have been to market on HBO with that silly name?
Holy Shit. Sean Bean is sitting in a chair made of motherfucking swords
GAME OF THRONES
If anything the should have named it
Sean Bean's SWORD CHAIR
i only ever took one philosophy course
it was jurisprudence/ philosophy of law
i was super jazzed
but the professor really just wanted to teach philosophy of feminism
so after an quick touch on st augustine we proceeded directly to a semester of catherine mackinnon and andrea dworkin
worst class ever
what a dick
I dunno man, i ain't no gat dang nerd
twitch.tv/tehsloth
SLOTHS KNEEL TO NO MAN
Hmm, okay then.
Do you have one for why physicalism is wrong? ^_^
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
Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
Get dunked on
but I cannot bring myself to look at any got with Rob Stark in it. that shit was heartbreaking. I now feel silly for not expecting something but I didn't at all.
yeah i guess that makes sense. if you are studying physics in a university you're not really studying any live fields until your doctoral dissertation generally. all of the discoveries in physics are in high-energy subatomics and occasional bits of astro, and those aren't really of general interest and of zero practical application.
most physicists end up in engineering-oriented fields by grad school. things like semiconductor doping or that kind of thing probably.
Yeah but that made Sansa Stark going into a rage and beheading Joffrey all the sweeter.
Well you aren't really walking away with a general understanding so much as you're being introduced to a novel concept.
sssssssssssh let me have this :P
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
eat!
I didn't see that. I stopped watching after Drago came back as a dragon. Such lazy writing. So Spoiler.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-fox-knows/
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I thought they really jumped the shark with the time travel
twitch.tv/tehsloth
I guess it's true what they say - once you start liking a character on this show, they're destined to be killed off. And Joffrey is universally loved.
in what other way could i prove that i have seen the mona lisa than through language?