|
On January 28 2015 00:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote: An interesting tangent; The grain used to feed the cows in the USA could feed 800 million people. This doesn't include everything else the cows eat. Last year the NY Times estimated that 11.3% or 800 million people are malnourished in the world. This means nothing because the world already produces about twice as much food as required to feed everyone its just that no one is paying to deliver it to the people that need it. There's no monetary profit in being charitable that is true. but some people are at least not horrible. bill gates is doing alright financially and providing more help to improving the world than.... everyone?
|
On January 28 2015 00:18 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 00:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 28 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote: An interesting tangent; The grain used to feed the cows in the USA could feed 800 million people. This doesn't include everything else the cows eat. Last year the NY Times estimated that 11.3% or 800 million people are malnourished in the world. This means nothing because the world already produces about twice as much food as required to feed everyone its just that no one is paying to deliver it to the people that need it. There's no monetary profit in being charitable that is true. but some people are at least not horrible. bill gates is doing alright financially and providing more help to improving the world than.... everyone?
Oh, I'm not saying there aren't people that do it. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. are very charitable people and have helped countless lives.
But in a world dominated by profit, those deemed successful are those that make the most money by any necessary means.
|
On January 28 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote: An interesting tangent; The grain used to feed the cows in the USA could feed 800 million people. This doesn't include everything else the cows eat. Last year the NY Times estimated that 11.3% or 800 million people are malnourished in the world. This means nothing because the world already produces about twice as much food as required to feed everyone its just that no one is paying to deliver it to the people that need it. Also going to point out that cows should be pasture fed and not with grain.
|
On January 28 2015 00:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 00:18 ComaDose wrote:On January 28 2015 00:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 28 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote: An interesting tangent; The grain used to feed the cows in the USA could feed 800 million people. This doesn't include everything else the cows eat. Last year the NY Times estimated that 11.3% or 800 million people are malnourished in the world. This means nothing because the world already produces about twice as much food as required to feed everyone its just that no one is paying to deliver it to the people that need it. There's no monetary profit in being charitable that is true. but some people are at least not horrible. bill gates is doing alright financially and providing more help to improving the world than.... everyone? Oh, I'm not saying there aren't people that do it. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. are very charitable people and have helped countless lives. But in a world dominated by profit, those deemed successful are those that make the most money by any necessary means. Hopefully that doesn't last too much longer. You may say that im a dreamer~~~
|
So, OBS, Xplit, and FFSplit... which one sucks less dick?
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On January 28 2015 00:34 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 00:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 28 2015 00:18 ComaDose wrote:On January 28 2015 00:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 28 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote: An interesting tangent; The grain used to feed the cows in the USA could feed 800 million people. This doesn't include everything else the cows eat. Last year the NY Times estimated that 11.3% or 800 million people are malnourished in the world. This means nothing because the world already produces about twice as much food as required to feed everyone its just that no one is paying to deliver it to the people that need it. There's no monetary profit in being charitable that is true. but some people are at least not horrible. bill gates is doing alright financially and providing more help to improving the world than.... everyone? Oh, I'm not saying there aren't people that do it. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. are very charitable people and have helped countless lives. But in a world dominated by profit, those deemed successful are those that make the most money by any necessary means. Hopefully that doesn't last too much longer. You may say that im a dreamer~~~ I would have never thought we'd find mMarxists beyond the pond.
|
United States15536 Posts
On January 28 2015 00:35 Gahlo wrote: So, OBS, Xplit, and FFSplit... which one sucks less dick?
In my currently highly limited experience, OBS is totally fine for just streaming games. Xplit is way more flexible with screen setups (it allows for the highly better window placement in some of the D&D streams), but obviously has the "this costs money" problem.
|
On January 28 2015 00:37 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 00:34 ComaDose wrote:On January 28 2015 00:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 28 2015 00:18 ComaDose wrote:On January 28 2015 00:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:On January 28 2015 00:15 ComaDose wrote: An interesting tangent; The grain used to feed the cows in the USA could feed 800 million people. This doesn't include everything else the cows eat. Last year the NY Times estimated that 11.3% or 800 million people are malnourished in the world. This means nothing because the world already produces about twice as much food as required to feed everyone its just that no one is paying to deliver it to the people that need it. There's no monetary profit in being charitable that is true. but some people are at least not horrible. bill gates is doing alright financially and providing more help to improving the world than.... everyone? Oh, I'm not saying there aren't people that do it. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. are very charitable people and have helped countless lives. But in a world dominated by profit, those deemed successful are those that make the most money by any necessary means. Hopefully that doesn't last too much longer. You may say that im a dreamer~~~ I would have never thought we'd find mMarxists beyond the pond. Capitalist pigs are also factory farm raised.
On January 28 2015 00:41 AsmodeusXI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 00:35 Gahlo wrote: So, OBS, Xplit, and FFSplit... which one sucks less dick? In my currently highly limited experience, OBS is totally fine for just streaming games. Xplit is way more flexible with screen setups (it allows for the highly better window placement in some of the D&D streams), but obviously has the "this costs money" problem. I think OBS has the options are you looking for for window placement but its less user friendly I think its more oriented to having a capture card. Also its much less resource intensive and you don't have to pay for the full version.
|
United Kingdom30775 Posts
gonna stream some battleblock theater with wave in a bit
|
On January 28 2015 00:47 Holyflare wrote:gonna stream some battleblock theater with wave in a bit  Don't you guys have jobs?
|
United Kingdom30775 Posts
|
Day off today 'cause my supervisor has an odd schedule.
|
Turns out I didn't have pax pox, instead 3 wisdom teeth have decided to start rearranging my mouth on their own.
|
United States23745 Posts
I have no desire to play Five Nights at Freddy's 3, but I'm really excited for other people to play it and pick apart the lore and explain it to me in a neatly packaged Youtube video.
|
United Kingdom30775 Posts
|
On January 28 2015 01:02 onlywonderboy wrote: I have no desire to play Five Nights at Freddy's 3, but I'm really excited for other people to play it and pick apart the lore and explain it to me in a neatly packaged Youtube video. I didn't play either of the first two, but I really enjoyed watching Markiplier play them and talk about them.
I find that some horror games are better experienced vicariously rather than played alone at home.
|
On January 28 2015 01:02 onlywonderboy wrote: I have no desire to play Five Nights at Freddy's 3, but I'm really excited for other people to play it and pick apart the lore and explain it to me in a neatly packaged Youtube video. *with random jumpscares?
|
United States23745 Posts
On January 28 2015 01:08 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2015 01:02 onlywonderboy wrote: I have no desire to play Five Nights at Freddy's 3, but I'm really excited for other people to play it and pick apart the lore and explain it to me in a neatly packaged Youtube video. I didn't play either of the first two, but I really enjoyed watching Markiplier play them and talk about them. I find that some horror games are better experienced vicariously rather than played alone at home. This is the video that sold me on the lore of the games + Show Spoiler + Also the Steam description sounds super interesting. + Show Spoiler [From the Steam Page] +"Thirty years after Freddy Fazbear's Pizza closed it's doors, the events that took place there have become nothing more than a rumor and a childhood memory, but the owners of "Fazbear's Fright: The Horror Attraction" are determined to revive the legend and make the experience as authentic as possible for patrons, going to great lengths to find anything that might have survived decades of neglect and ruin. At first there were only empty shells, a hand, a hook, an old paper-plate doll, but then a remarkable discovery was made... The attraction now has one animatronic."
|
I'm looking at getting a second monitor (since it's awesome) and probably get a webcam too in case I do bother to stream the times I can. Any recommendations for either? Currently just watching newegg for what seems like a great deal. Preferably around $120 or less is even better, I'm not a monitor snob but don't want junk. I have Prime too for what it's worth suggestion-wise.
|
On January 28 2015 00:05 Gahlo wrote: To address the rest, you're saying examples given aren't "statistically relevant" yet you're coming to the table with a stance about a large group of people that you aren't part of without anything but a hypothesis. The fact that we have 4 examples, two secondary and two primary from a cross section of the vegetarian population, that comes from a sample size of the maybe 20-30 regular posters in this thread should be telling.
Being vegetarian doesn't necessitate holding such a strong opinion that it has to be one way. That's entirely up to the person. Just like it's up to an omnivore to choose to not date somebody because they're vegetarian. Both are fine, but those are conscious decisions that reflect on the character of the person, not the group they are judging. Nah dude, see vegetarianism is a strongly held belief like religion, and both those things make people want to convert others to their causes. thats why religions heavy in vegetarianism are also the most violent and insistent converters. I can never get those bhuddists or Sihks or hindu off my lawn trying to convert me.
|
|
|
|
|
|