The Elder Scrolls series of games have had such character progression since 1994. You can pick up Elder Scrolls 1: Arena for free from the publishers if you really want.
Yes. However, the question I was responding to was query the specifics of Islam. If you're going to go through and assess the details of what does or doesn't have ideological aspects, you'll have a hard time finding anything that's absent of an ideology. Ideology is defined as the process that conceals reality through a mist of semiotics, so basically you'd be look for a thing that somehow doesn't represent reality, because it is reality. Good luck with that.
Gramsci's prison notebooks, or Baudrillard's post-1990 works would probably be a better starting point. Chomsky's perview is that of anarcho-cynicalism, and the other two provide more of an understanding of ideology as it functions in a more universal sense than just anarchic revolutionary systems.
The reason being that Chomsky's work has been more optimistic of recent developments in the media industries, and, honestly, that's not something I can have much faith in. Simply agreeing with the dominant media perspective doesn't mean that the system is any less ideological.
Yes, yes, yes, and god doesn't exist, global warming's a myth, etc etc etc. The system will not uncover anything real in its ratings, it's simply going to reflect a consensus. There's a process here which underlies this system; it's called reification, and while it has several different definitions depending on your field of study, the context I'm invoking it in is the cultural studies model. It describes the process where individuals take statistical data as actual reality - importantly, the statistics are just a model of reality, not its actual enacted truth. You can keep citing things that you consider to be 'true' or 'false' or even attempt to appeal to an inner truth in your statement, but the fact of the matter is that the system being suggested here has so many overlaps in terms of a consistency of truth within any one website, let alone the whole discursive nature of the internet. By engaging in a system which will determine the truth through authority, rather than allow individuals to come to their own conclusions about the data, you begin to lose sight of the fact that reality is too complex for anyone to be 'right' all the time, let alone consistently. As such, the system would fall to a populist position, coming into huge conflicts whenever the material is split into binary camps of, for example belief in a God or Gods, or belief in global warming. If such a system was implemented, I would ignore it, and I would encourage others too as well.
Absolutely nothing. The system is exactly a popularity contest, where truth is determined democratically, rather than by actual relationship to reality.
On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.
Personally I'm surprised that, upon finding "buckets of urine" that the police decided to take it with them.
It depends on whether you believe the people should be granted positive or negative forms of liberty. Should citizens be allowed access to a social system that exists independently of the government or not? I believe they should, as the Internet acts as a complimentary system to already existing forms of human interaction.
Maybe not Kant or Godel, but Theodor Adorno springs to mind, as does Walter Lippman. Adorno being the man that showed unbounded contempt for the intelligence of the 'mass audience' and describing inital functions of state and corporate run hegemonic systems, and Walter Lippman for encouraging their usage to control the 'ignorant masses.'
Slashdot Mirror
Who would want a web-cam for an eye anyway? I mean, seriously, it's about 1fps, shitty resolution, terrible image, etc.
If I was paying for a new eye, I'd probably invest more than fifty bucks on it.
I was going to say that Marilyn Manson might get annoyed with the automated gender mixup, but then I realised that he probably wouldn't.
Naah... Work just keeps me busy while I'm waiting for my friends to post their newest hilarious status update on Facebook.
The Elder Scrolls series of games have had such character progression since 1994. You can pick up Elder Scrolls 1: Arena for free from the publishers if you really want.
Yes. However, the question I was responding to was query the specifics of Islam. If you're going to go through and assess the details of what does or doesn't have ideological aspects, you'll have a hard time finding anything that's absent of an ideology. Ideology is defined as the process that conceals reality through a mist of semiotics, so basically you'd be look for a thing that somehow doesn't represent reality, because it is reality. Good luck with that.
My elderly relatives don't need technology to released 15 litres of compressed anything in 0.1 seconds. Hell, I bet they could do it even quicker.
Gramsci's prison notebooks, or Baudrillard's post-1990 works would probably be a better starting point. Chomsky's perview is that of anarcho-cynicalism, and the other two provide more of an understanding of ideology as it functions in a more universal sense than just anarchic revolutionary systems.
The reason being that Chomsky's work has been more optimistic of recent developments in the media industries, and, honestly, that's not something I can have much faith in. Simply agreeing with the dominant media perspective doesn't mean that the system is any less ideological.
Ironically, the reason is because Islamic faith is a type of ideology. Thus people would believe that it would alter his understanding of the facts.
"These aren't the droids I'm looking for, because the droid I'm looking for is you."
Yeah, they should just stick to non-ideological games. Like Army of Two.
Yes, yes, yes, and god doesn't exist, global warming's a myth, etc etc etc. The system will not uncover anything real in its ratings, it's simply going to reflect a consensus. There's a process here which underlies this system; it's called reification, and while it has several different definitions depending on your field of study, the context I'm invoking it in is the cultural studies model. It describes the process where individuals take statistical data as actual reality - importantly, the statistics are just a model of reality, not its actual enacted truth. You can keep citing things that you consider to be 'true' or 'false' or even attempt to appeal to an inner truth in your statement, but the fact of the matter is that the system being suggested here has so many overlaps in terms of a consistency of truth within any one website, let alone the whole discursive nature of the internet. By engaging in a system which will determine the truth through authority, rather than allow individuals to come to their own conclusions about the data, you begin to lose sight of the fact that reality is too complex for anyone to be 'right' all the time, let alone consistently. As such, the system would fall to a populist position, coming into huge conflicts whenever the material is split into binary camps of, for example belief in a God or Gods, or belief in global warming. If such a system was implemented, I would ignore it, and I would encourage others too as well.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Absolutely nothing. The system is exactly a popularity contest, where truth is determined democratically, rather than by actual relationship to reality.
Clearly you don't understand truthiness. I don't need a rating, I know the answer in my gut.
Personally I'm surprised that, upon finding "buckets of urine" that the police decided to take it with them.
France aime les porcs Americains monolingues. Peut-etre que vous pouvez trouver quelque chose, vous chien.
There, fixed it for you.
Give him a break, he's clearly Canadian.
I imagine they started writing remember, but forgot how far they'd gotten when committing it to paper.
It depends on whether you believe the people should be granted positive or negative forms of liberty. Should citizens be allowed access to a social system that exists independently of the government or not? I believe they should, as the Internet acts as a complimentary system to already existing forms of human interaction.
Hahaha! Originally the bigger blocks were called 'stones', and that's what the building was made out of.
Exactly! Lego should never be mixed with Duplo. It's a travesty!
Does that help at all? ;)
Quantum G is the name of the parent post's author. That's what kind of fucking name "Quantum G" is.
What, your parents named you Quantum G?
Maybe not Kant or Godel, but Theodor Adorno springs to mind, as does Walter Lippman. Adorno being the man that showed unbounded contempt for the intelligence of the 'mass audience' and describing inital functions of state and corporate run hegemonic systems, and Walter Lippman for encouraging their usage to control the 'ignorant masses.'