Gollgagh

aw yeah this is just what I was looking for today good stuff

Jeesh I hate it when that happens to people everybody loses since the potential for a song never gets fulfilled

I'm okay with a front touchscreen if only for web browsing but that back thing makes no sense at all

and Nintendo gets all your money, so everybody's happy!

more like a broken record amirite

imma joo jew train

you nerds don't even know what a troll is I'm an asshole, not a troll also Coop, the only punctuation I don't use in normal posts is a period; additionally, I do capitalize "I" and proper nouns No, but seriously, no one's really disagreeing with you, Crowbar (least of all me) but I can assure you that thephoenix's post was completely tongue-in-cheek

it is increasingly difficult to take you seriously regarding semantics when you cannot even contract "you are" correctly

wait wait wait what I hadn't heard of this before what product coined the term juice

I dunno about 20%, but in any server I play on, there's a decently annoying amount of missing chunks I blame notch

p sure that you were the only one reading it as such

I smell frustration

not really? hell no, that's fucking awesome "let's square the size of the PSP2's screen just because"

if they start making "touch control only" games I will be fucking pissed I hated those things on DS and will certainly not be welcoming them with open arms on a PSP

I am saying that if you claim that X is an infinite number and also claim that manipulating infinities is meaningless, then you cannot claim that a series of statements that manipulates that infinite number X as a mathematical proof, and if you do then the proof is, by your own definition, meaningless. (Ignoring the fact that you didn't actually manipulate the X at all like any actual mathematical proof would do)

hey I'm jus sayin to each his own and I happen to like it

You cannot claim that series of statements as a mathematical proof and say it is meaningless in the same breath; either the proof is mathematically sound or it is not. If you claim that manipulating various infinities is meaningless then your proof is likewise meaningless by your own logic. Also you are combining two different numbers in your definition of X and those are: 1) The number of possible ideas and 2) The number of ideas that a person can have in a lifetime. Yes, we can assume that the total number of possible ideas is infinite; however we cannot assume that a person will have infinite ideas in his lifetime because his lifetime is limited.

Okay see the problem with this is that it's a mathematically logical leap to assume that in the time that a person is allowed to create X unique ideas for himself, he can also make X^X ideas derived from one other person's X ideas, or the same amount of ideas as he could make in his lifetime per idea of this other person. To show you how ridiculous this number is, let's say that people can achieve 100 unique ideas in their lifetime. By your proof, that same person should therefore be able to create 100^100 derivative ideas. That's 1x10^200 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ideas from that one person. That is an utterly incomprehensible number.

best review ever

example of depth of field (along with better light and linecraft)

I traded in my old ps1 and ten (mostly) crap games for $100 off of a new ps2 (back when it was still EB Games). That thing was beat up to hell and on its last legs anyway, so really the only thing about that transaction I ever regret was trading in my copy of SaGa Frontier, but even that was alleviated by the fact that I found a damned good condition copy of it in that same Gamestop two years later for $15.

what an awful legendary

see: Game Boy Advance Micro

you really need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths