Upload
Login or register

warbob

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:6/23/2011
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5533
Highest Content Rank:#4851
Highest Comment Rank:#1983
Content Thumbs: 211 total,  478 ,  267
Comment Thumbs: 7880 total,  11227 ,  3347
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 21 Content: Peasant → Level 22 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 66% (66/100)
Level 266 Comments: Pure Win → Level 267 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:59395
Times Content Favorited:17 times
Total Comments Made:6694
FJ Points:7073
Favorite Tags: lol (2)

latest user's comments

#1215213 - haven't watched Gundam. I don't see that many "m…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/04/2016 on Anime & Manga - anime... 0
User avatar
#1215214 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
Eh, mecha is an acquired taste, to be honest.

How about Tokyo Ravens, you watched that? Kon's their mascot.
User avatar
#1215215 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
Kon is a mascot? Kon is ... yeah, best character.

As for mecha - I just get irritated at how people do fancy maneuvers in robots, despite them being supposedly the same and etc.
Like, it would be better if they did the exact same shit but with their actual bodies instead of oversized clunks of shiny crome.

That being said, I have watched CG and it is in the top few of my MAL list. That being said, CG doesn't focus on "look at how fancy I can move with this robot" and treated them more as what I like to see them treated as - advanced war machine that is not an omnipotent entity and isn't the center of the world as soon as it appears.
User avatar
#1215216 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
So uh, what's CG?
User avatar
#1215217 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
Code Geass
#1215211 - I wouldn't have that much of an issue if I couldn't see the bu…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/04/2016 on Anime & Manga - anime... 0
User avatar
#1215212 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
I just really fucking hate it when they introduce annoying mascot characters. You know what mascot characters done right look like? Haro, from the Gundam series.
User avatar
#1215213 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
haven't watched Gundam.

I don't see that many "mascot" characters, or maybe I just don't perceive them as such.
User avatar
#1215214 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
Eh, mecha is an acquired taste, to be honest.

How about Tokyo Ravens, you watched that? Kon's their mascot.
User avatar
#1215215 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
Kon is a mascot? Kon is ... yeah, best character.

As for mecha - I just get irritated at how people do fancy maneuvers in robots, despite them being supposedly the same and etc.
Like, it would be better if they did the exact same shit but with their actual bodies instead of oversized clunks of shiny crome.

That being said, I have watched CG and it is in the top few of my MAL list. That being said, CG doesn't focus on "look at how fancy I can move with this robot" and treated them more as what I like to see them treated as - advanced war machine that is not an omnipotent entity and isn't the center of the world as soon as it appears.
User avatar
#1215216 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
So uh, what's CG?
User avatar
#1215217 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
Code Geass
#1215208 - try Re:Zero  [+] (1 new reply) 06/04/2016 on Anime & Manga - anime... 0
#1215220 - anon (06/04/2016) [-]
no
#1215207 - at least there's the occasional entertainment I was w…  [+] (8 new replies) 06/04/2016 on Anime & Manga - anime... 0
User avatar
#1215209 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
Honestly, when they introduced the mascot character; Benio's fire fox familiar thing, I knew from there that the show was going to be shit.
User avatar
#1215211 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
I wouldn't have that much of an issue if I couldn't see the budget running out every 2 frames
User avatar
#1215212 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
I just really fucking hate it when they introduce annoying mascot characters. You know what mascot characters done right look like? Haro, from the Gundam series.
User avatar
#1215213 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
haven't watched Gundam.

I don't see that many "mascot" characters, or maybe I just don't perceive them as such.
User avatar
#1215214 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
Eh, mecha is an acquired taste, to be honest.

How about Tokyo Ravens, you watched that? Kon's their mascot.
User avatar
#1215215 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
Kon is a mascot? Kon is ... yeah, best character.

As for mecha - I just get irritated at how people do fancy maneuvers in robots, despite them being supposedly the same and etc.
Like, it would be better if they did the exact same shit but with their actual bodies instead of oversized clunks of shiny crome.

That being said, I have watched CG and it is in the top few of my MAL list. That being said, CG doesn't focus on "look at how fancy I can move with this robot" and treated them more as what I like to see them treated as - advanced war machine that is not an omnipotent entity and isn't the center of the world as soon as it appears.
User avatar
#1215216 - taokami (06/04/2016) [-]
So uh, what's CG?
User avatar
#1215217 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
Code Geass
#67 - Picture 06/04/2016 on Take your time +19
#36 - maybe if the lips weren't so gigantic 06/04/2016 on /fa/ creates the ideal man 0
#88 - both the situation you described and I described are based on … 06/04/2016 on thought that was last year +1
#87 - that's the difference with religion. Religion is a belief of a…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/04/2016 on thought that was last year 0
User avatar
#96 - arandomanon (06/04/2016) [-]
Well, indeed. As a history student I must keep in mind (probably more than those who study STEM) that our perspective of reality is very voluble and newer perspectives can come and replace the ones we've been taught and we must be very open (but also critic) with new discoveries and contributions.

That doesn't mean we have to distrust everything because, even when there's always room for debate and for corrections, chances are that if this one hypothesis has more evidences than others, it also is as close as reality as we can get right now. And that's very important.
#76 - I don't think you get it. It's not 100%. It is never …  [+] (5 new replies) 06/04/2016 on thought that was last year +1
User avatar
#84 - thellamafama (06/04/2016) [-]
I heard a very similar thing about walking through a door.

There is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of walking through a door with all the atoms shifting around you so it's technically not impossible. The same way that it's not impossible that dinosaurs never existed, I obviously believe that they do. But there is no denying that there's a chance they didn't. Anyone who thinks that Science is 100% accurate just looks blindly at what they are told
User avatar
#88 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
both the situation you described and I described are based on the same concept - the components of the material and your own body never actually making contact.
User avatar
#79 - arandomanon (06/04/2016) [-]
I guess that's true, but working with such small chances hypothesis is just stupid. And your logic is also applicable not only to science but also to everything else. Nothing is 100% or 0%, absolutely nothing. Not even what we see nor what we feel. Nothing at all. But, is it profitable to think like that? To think "there's a super small chance of this or that so we can't talk about this is what happened even when we have evidences"? I don't think so.

Yeah, you are right. Nothing is ever 100% true or false. But there's nothing (be it science, be it whatever) that provides a 100% fiability of gathering data or information. Maybe that's what thellamafama tried to say? Maybe, but in that case, he should've worded it better.
User avatar
#87 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
that's the difference with religion. Religion is a belief of absolute certainty in something.

As for whether it is profitable to encompass infinitely small possibilities - most often not. But one has to remember, even if from your perspective something has a very low chance of happening, you are not omniscient. The chance of something happening is precisely a human trying to predict an outcome based on the data he has. But the reality is that events are determined by countless occurances before that.

In other words, it's important to leave a room for different than the established possibilities, because even if from our perspective it may seem as extremely unlikely to be true, we can not accurately ascertain the chances of it happening either.
User avatar
#96 - arandomanon (06/04/2016) [-]
Well, indeed. As a history student I must keep in mind (probably more than those who study STEM) that our perspective of reality is very voluble and newer perspectives can come and replace the ones we've been taught and we must be very open (but also critic) with new discoveries and contributions.

That doesn't mean we have to distrust everything because, even when there's always room for debate and for corrections, chances are that if this one hypothesis has more evidences than others, it also is as close as reality as we can get right now. And that's very important.
#66 - He is completely right and everyone in this thread is retarded…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/04/2016 on thought that was last year +2
User avatar
#73 - arandomanon (06/04/2016) [-]
While you do have a point, stating that "it's not 100% sure that dinnosaurs existed" when we have fossils it's kind of ridiculous. Maybe the dinnosaurs we picture aren't the real ones, maybe they are completely different, maybe they weren't even dinnosaurs exactly. But it's kind of obvious that something existed and that's what's the point here, I believe, that trying to deny that is stupid.
User avatar
#76 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
I don't think you get it.

It's not 100%. It is never 100%.
There are countless possibilities how that could've happened in some other way. And while the chance of all the bones being created from the fart of the spaghetti monster after it has stayed there for exacly 1 billion years and 1 seconds and then suddenly transformed into what looks like a proper bone structure to us is infinitely low, like less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% , it is still not zero.

Nothing is ever 100% and nothing is never 0%.

Here's a fun fact I was told back a long while ago. Theoretically speaking if you punch a wall, there is a chance for your fist to pass right through it. The chance is less than 1:10^number of years the universe has been estimated to exist

but there is still a chance.
User avatar
#84 - thellamafama (06/04/2016) [-]
I heard a very similar thing about walking through a door.

There is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of walking through a door with all the atoms shifting around you so it's technically not impossible. The same way that it's not impossible that dinosaurs never existed, I obviously believe that they do. But there is no denying that there's a chance they didn't. Anyone who thinks that Science is 100% accurate just looks blindly at what they are told
User avatar
#88 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
both the situation you described and I described are based on the same concept - the components of the material and your own body never actually making contact.
User avatar
#79 - arandomanon (06/04/2016) [-]
I guess that's true, but working with such small chances hypothesis is just stupid. And your logic is also applicable not only to science but also to everything else. Nothing is 100% or 0%, absolutely nothing. Not even what we see nor what we feel. Nothing at all. But, is it profitable to think like that? To think "there's a super small chance of this or that so we can't talk about this is what happened even when we have evidences"? I don't think so.

Yeah, you are right. Nothing is ever 100% true or false. But there's nothing (be it science, be it whatever) that provides a 100% fiability of gathering data or information. Maybe that's what thellamafama tried to say? Maybe, but in that case, he should've worded it better.
User avatar
#87 - warbob (06/04/2016) [-]
that's the difference with religion. Religion is a belief of absolute certainty in something.

As for whether it is profitable to encompass infinitely small possibilities - most often not. But one has to remember, even if from your perspective something has a very low chance of happening, you are not omniscient. The chance of something happening is precisely a human trying to predict an outcome based on the data he has. But the reality is that events are determined by countless occurances before that.

In other words, it's important to leave a room for different than the established possibilities, because even if from our perspective it may seem as extremely unlikely to be true, we can not accurately ascertain the chances of it happening either.
User avatar
#96 - arandomanon (06/04/2016) [-]
Well, indeed. As a history student I must keep in mind (probably more than those who study STEM) that our perspective of reality is very voluble and newer perspectives can come and replace the ones we've been taught and we must be very open (but also critic) with new discoveries and contributions.

That doesn't mean we have to distrust everything because, even when there's always room for debate and for corrections, chances are that if this one hypothesis has more evidences than others, it also is as close as reality as we can get right now. And that's very important.