Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:3/17/2012
Last Login:7/24/2016
Location:The Netherlands
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#536
Highest Content Rank:#14558
Highest Comment Rank:#46
Content Thumbs: 96 total,  176 ,  80
Comment Thumbs: 61496 total,  71941 ,  10445
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 12.9% (129/1000)
Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Content Views:13081
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:10330
FJ Points:47686

latest user's comments

#7 - I'm not gonna lie. If I could, I would. Even though I…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/20/2016 on Beards -2
#24 - anon (06/21/2016) [-]
I can sense the sweaty virgin through this post
#40 - quoterox (06/21/2016) [-]
#25 - auryn (06/21/2016) [-]
Does the concept joke says anything to you.
#29 - anon (06/21/2016) [-]
sorry I said this
#26 - anon (06/21/2016) [-]
X D D D X D D D D D D D X dddddd
#44 - I'd never expected them to actually call it the 1080 though. …  [+] (2 new replies) 06/20/2016 on Pascal - GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 +12
User avatar
#69 - sniffythebird (06/21/2016) [-]
Same here. I expected them to do a different naming scheme like GTX 1800 and GTX 1700, and then 2800 and so on for future generations.
User avatar
#49 - yuichka (06/21/2016) [-]
It doesn't quiet fit the 4k experience unless you get them in SLI.
Does great job on 1440p though, while not a "standard" still, it's the next stop before 4k.
And unless we will max out 120fps at 1440p, we wont see cards doing great performance on 4k... So yeaa..
#42 - >founders edition Defintely going for the high-end… 06/20/2016 on Pascal - GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 0
#2 - Paradox. If he actually fixed it, there wouldn't be a…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/20/2016 on Time +19
User avatar
#7 - toxicwarning (06/21/2016) [-]
It's fucking time travel, let's not pretend we understand how it would work.
#5 - kameken (06/21/2016) [-]
#3 - wiseagain (06/20/2016) [-]
>Man discovers his time machine is broken
>walks into house
>posts about it on Facebook
>goes back to garage
>fixes it
>goes back in time to when his alternate self was discovering his time machine was broken
>posts that he had fixed the problem on Facebook
>returns to native time

And I know he'd probably see that message, but if he did see it, maybe he deduced that he would post about his time machine being broken due to the phrasing of the first post?
#4 - auryn (06/21/2016) [-]
But how does one return to one's native time?

When you alter the past and travel forwards in time again, wouldn't you just go to the future of that altered past, instead of the original present.
User avatar
#6 - wdparsell (06/21/2016) [-]
You would just walk right out the door as your past self is fixing the time machine you just used. Trust me, I played timesplitters.
#6 - Life 06/20/2016 on cringy +4
#5 - ******* mimics.. 06/20/2016 on how to make a clock +2
#3 - 'Tis but a scratch. 06/20/2016 on noot noot motherfucker 0
#14 - On my first try of the Nameless King I only needed to hit him … 06/20/2016 on Namless king one hit +5
#19 - You're making one of the worst and most horrible mistakes in s… 06/20/2016 on My favorite quote +2
#17 - By the way, I'm not saying it is certain there is life. I was …  [+] (3 new replies) 06/20/2016 on My favorite quote +1
User avatar
#18 - platinumaltaria (06/20/2016) [-]
You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want to without evidence, however it is not scientifically accurate. There is no indication that life exists anywhere beyond earth, and so believing that no life exists beyond earth is the logical conclusion. Believing that life does exist beyond earth is baseless, as there is a complete lack of evidence towards that claim.
In fact, as one can observe with the fermi paradox, the conspicuous lack of evidence is actually evidence of absence, at least within the realm of sentient life.
User avatar
#29 - therealtjthemedic (06/21/2016) [-]
There's a difference between 'scientifically accurate' and empirically accurate.
We've never seen another star up close.
All our assumptions about the rest of the universe are from observing our own local area.
The probability of getting a signal from another sapient lifeform is so incredibly low, since for anyone to receive our signals, they'd have to be within about 100 light-years of us. In the scale of the entire universe, that is indescribably small.
#19 - auryn (06/20/2016) [-]
You're making one of the worst and most horrible mistakes in science, and even logic as a whole.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The only logical conclusion is that we don't know.

But we do know that life happened here. And out of the billions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions, and bilions of other solar systems with countless oforbiting planets, why would it only be possible here?

I don't know where you base your opinion on, because we know next to nothing about anything beyond our own solar system. And our methods of gathering information for what's beyond is rather limited and inconsequential.
And we certainly have not "tested" even the tiniest speck of a significant number, in relation to the total number, of planets for life.
And that's even besides, questioning the validity of the interpretation of data and our conception of life.