Discussion in 'BMP - Public' started by Kensuimo, Feb 14, 2017.
Approaching spidermelon, frankly.
How'd you get so good at typing?
More examples of Robert Walker's Temps. Also the last picture seems to lack any Occ so Im now thinking just pure SS
I'm tempted to classify Robert Walker as a progressive cro magnon par excellence. Of course, I'd be breaking a bunch of rules to do so, so I'll just kinda hint at it. There's also a chance that "spidermelon" is exactly the same thing.
Anthro cro-mag yes, but not cro-mag in the sense we use the term normally. Disagree on the temps. Looks like brachycephaly combined with a relatively large and rectangular frontal.
Looks like a mix between Audie Murphy and this guy.
Murphy seems to be dualfront x(S/T). Resembles Reagan.
Audie is Occ. Or Fauxcippital. According to the pics I posted in the big face reading thread anyway.
His face has a rather Irish look it seems. Which would fit Reagan as well.
Is Ridley Scott one? How about Peter Barakan?
I'd call Ridley Scott downwardnose MS, possible M-m-S (meaning melon frontal). Bug, obviously. Resembles Conan and to some extent Louie CK.
Peter Barakan does indeed appear to have temporals. However, I would call that melon front (the eyes), not crinklesock. He looks as if he's evaluating the viewer in nearly every photo.
Ridley Scott looks like CBS to me.
What is Phillip K Dick since you posted a picture of Scott with him? Now the faces in this thread are becoming recognizable to me.
Dick is widespace TT.
Janet Yellen, Fed chairwoman. No good pics but her hair makes her temps pretty evident. Potential backswept, definite hooknose.
Frank Drake, astrophysicist. Known for an equation describing the probability of finding alien life of dubious utility.
Drake equation - Wikipedia | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
I wouldn't describe the Drake equation as an accomplishment. It's unimpressive scifi at best, not even a microzen for me (as defined by ESR).
Did I call it an accomplishment?
"In 1955, Feyerabend received his first academic appointment at the University of Bristol, where he gave lectures about the philosophy of science. Later in his life he worked as a professor (or equivalent) at Berkeley, Auckland, Kassel, Sussex, Yale, London, Berlin and ETH Zurich. During this time, he developed a critical view of science, which he later described as 'anarchistic' or 'dadaistic' to illustrate his rejection of the dogmatic use of rules, a position incompatible with the contemporary rationalistic culture in the philosophy of science.
In his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a "dose" of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.
For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a "search for the truth" in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? "Is it not possible," asks Kierkegaard, "that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?" I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard's sense) is urgently needed. Against Method. p. 154.
Feyerabend's position was originally seen as radical in the philosophy of science, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths. (Feyerabend's position also implies that philosophical guidelines should be ignored by scientists, if they are to aim for progress.)
To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend provides counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to a certain fixed method. He took some examples of episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican revolution), and showed that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in such circumstances. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution.
One of the criteria for evaluating scientific theories that Feyerabend attacks is the consistency criterion. He points out that to insist that new theories be consistent with old theories gives an unreasonable advantage to the older theory. He makes the logical point that being compatible with a defunct older theory does not increase the validity or truth of a new theory over an alternative covering the same content. That is, if one had to choose between two theories of equal explanatory power, to choose the one that is compatible with an older, falsified theory is to make an aesthetic, rather than a rational choice. The familiarity of such a theory might also make it more appealing to scientists, since they will not have to disregard as many cherished prejudices. Hence, that theory can be said to have "an unfair advantage".
Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. So, "ad hoc" hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.
Feyerabend considered the possibility of incommensurability, but he was hesitant in his application of the concept. He wrote that "it is hardly ever possible to give an explicit definition of [incommensurability]" Against Method. p. 225., because it involves covert classifications and major conceptual changes. He also was critical of attempts to capture incommensurability in a logical framework, since he thought of incommensurability as a phenomenon outside the domain of logic. In the second appendix of Against Method (p. 114), Feyerabend states, "I never said... that any two rival theories are incommensurable... What I did say was that certain rival theories, so-called 'universal' theories, or 'non-instantial' theories, if interpreted in a certain way, could not be compared easily." Incommensurability did not concern Feyerabend greatly, because he believed that even when theories are commensurable (i.e. can be compared), the outcome of the comparison should not necessarily rule out either theory. To rephrase: when theories are incommensurable, they cannot rule each other out, and when theories are commensurable, they cannot rule each other out. Assessments of (in)commensurability, therefore, don't have much effect in Feyerabend's system, and can be more or less passed over in silence."
Egalitarianism of theory as well as of people.
"He rejected the view that science is especially "rational" on the grounds that there is no single common "rational" ingredient that unites all the sciences but excludes other modes of thought (Against Method (3rd ed.). p. 246.).
Hidetaka Miyazaki, creator of the Dark Souls series.
Bloodborne creator Hidetaka Miyazaki: ‘I didn’t have a dream. I wasn’t ambitious' | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/bloodborne-dark-souls-creator-hidetaka-miyazaki-interview
"When Hidetaka Miyazaki was a child, he was a keen reader, though not a talented one. Often he’d reach passages of text he couldn’t understand, and so would allow his imagination to fill in the blanks, using the accompanying illustrations. In this way, he felt he was co-writing the fiction alongside its original author. The thrill of this process never left him – and it is very much there in his arcane and fascinating video games, the latest of which, Bloodborne, has just been released to wild acclaim."
"It’s all the more notable considering that, even though Miyazaki is now the studio’s president, he’s still obsessively hands-on.
“Now I’m president,” he says, “I get to meet a lot of other company presidents. They’re such weird people. I’m fascinated by them.” With a smile, he adds: “I use some of them as enemy characters in our games.”
Close Up With Hidetaka Miyazaki, Director of Dark Souls III | Geek Culture | Close Up With Hidetaka Miyazaki, Director of Dark Souls III | Geek Culture | https://geekculture.co/close-up-with-hidetaka-miyazaki-director-of-dark-souls-iii/
"Miyazaki-san explained that such an approach to level design has always been his preference, and he prefers players to “climb” into areas and experience a form of verticality when moving from area to area. And, the lack of loading screens certainly helps by keeping the player immersed."
Nothing particularly Edenic about this but still unique.
That being said, he does have an intended ‘perfect’ vision of how the Dark Souls story should play out in his head. However, he has no intention of actually revealing what it actually might be.
That’s right. Even when it comes to the recently announced USD$10,000 bounty offered by Bandai Namco for fans to adequately explain what Dark Souls really is all about. Miyazaki-san explicitly says that no form of official statement will be released to endorse any theory offered from his end.
He is perfectly content at any story that players might form in their minds, and would actually be glad if they used elements from the game to be the guiding principle behind the entire lore for Dark Souls."
Looks Tungid. This is Memoire's master race nowadays over at the Apricity (his UN is Grab the Gauge).
Let me at it!
Johannes Stark, Nazi scientist.
[Human] Maldivian Girl with Aquablue Eyes | https://m.imgur.com/eSVfFFU
Separate names with a comma.