> I have barely had time to even touch my Xbox 360 in the past year. I'm too busy working and commuting to work so I can keep my mortgage paid, heat running and food on the table for my family.
That's your fault. If you were living more like a prisoner, for example renting a single room apartment in a highly undesirable neighbourhood, and not having a family, you would have plenty of money left. Then you could get a worse-paying job near your home (you could even sell your car and save a lot on gas: get a bike instead), and you would have all the time in the world to play on your Xbox.
Instead you chose to have a family and bought an expensive house. If that doesn't make you happy there is nobody to blame but yourself.
> But some don't even give it a first thought and thus you wind up with Java programs that require 1GB of RAM simply for the purpose of moving files between folders (I'm not exaggerating).
That seems... unlikely. What was the name of this program?
> Perhaps the point is that an art style that requires "stream[ing] hundreds of megabytes of texture data at 60 frames per second" isn't the only art style for a fun video game.
No it isn't. That's just you attempting to start a completely irrelevant discussion. In OP's example he explicitly assumed graphics similar to the original game.
You could argue that software uses more memory and cpu-cycles, but apart from that how has quality decreased? Letting Java (or any other language/libraries) do stuff for you decreases the number of errors you make. Surely using a library is better than everyone writing their own string comparison algorithms? People make mistakes, for every n lines of code not written, a bug is averted.
You seem to hate Java but it's not that much slower than other languages such as C despite the 'bloat'. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
If you look at the energy required just to cycle through all the values of a 256-bit counter, without doing any other useful work, that's more energy than is released in a supernova. Bruce Schneier has done the math for us: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html
We simply don't have the energy available to do such a thing, regardless of how much faster our computers become.
> Encryption and Peer to Peer networks are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.
There's really no need for encryption to increase in power. Unless new weaknesses are found, most of the standard encryption schemes will take far longer (by many orders of magnitude) than a human lifetime to break. For the purpose of piracy, that should be long enough; you can't get prosecuted for copyright infringement when you're dead.
> As well, Muslim men often have MANY wives numerating as high as a recent 100 women slaves a franction of their age with many under-13 wives even as young as 5 that are ritually sodomized if not consumed of all innocence like an American male drinks a 6-pack of beer.
For extremely small values of 'often' perhaps. For every guy that has 100 women, 99 guys have to go without. Given that men and women are born in about equal numbers, your baseless accusation of Muslim men is a logical impossibility. Citation needed?
> Not having sex with a menstruating woman is sensible when your main aim is to produce moe children to tend your goats and fight in your wars.
Having sex with a menstruating woman in no way hinders her ability to get pregnant at some other point during the month, so what is the point of banning it?
> If you intend to do the right thing (according to his will) and later it's found that it was actually the opposite of what he wants, it's still fine. You did what you thought he wanted, and that's what counts. The intent. As long as your intentions are good, you'll be saved.
And here I was thinking the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
> And its takes more belief that a single cell organism popped from the nothingness than it does for any ascendent being to create it.
And in your opinion, how much belief does it take to believe in the existence of an ascendent [sic] being? By your own logic, would it not be far more likely for a single cell organism to pop from nothingness, than for an omnipotent omniscient being to pop from nothingness?
Besides, most of science does not involve the origin of life at all. Not even evolution (it only describes the development of life). Only abiogenesis is concerned with the actual 'creation' of life, and unlike your misleading description does not involve single cell organisms 'popping' from nothingness at all. Even if abiogenesis were shown to be incorrect, this would not affect the rest of science at all.
Next time you criticise something at least go through the trouble of educating yourself far enough that you can reasonably fake an educated opinion.
I type dvorak at home, but qwerty almost everywhere else. Turns out my muscle-memory was in large part linked to my keyboard; when I replaced my old one with a different one after it broke, I spent a day in utter confusion as my fingers would keep switching between the two layouts mid-sentence.
Nothing, really. All replicating things need energy and building materials. Biological lifeforms don't contain significant amounts of tungsten, so these cells have exactly nothing to gain by targeting us. In fact most of our environment does not contain significant amounts of tungsten, so outside the lab, these cells will have no chance of spreading. Even if they make it to a giant tungsten supply, they still need phosphorus and oxygen, and the former is probably not kept in close contact with heaps of tungsten.
And even when our metal overlords have access to all these materials, they will still need energy to actually assemble them.
These cells (assuming they even succeed in getting them to live) will be very harmless indeed.
Because to many users, https implies a secure connection to a trusted (by the standard of at least some CA) website. If you want encryption without authentication, please give it another name, such as 'httpe' ('e' for 'encrypted'). Httpe could be exactly the same as https with the exception of blindly accepting self-signed certificates.
> Wait, so you're saying that if I break into your house and start using your furniture to make burtnips (whatever they may be), I'm not illegally making burtnips?
No, however you would be guilty of burglary and destruction of property. That the destruction of my furniture also resulted in the creation of burtnips is irrelevant. Unless making burtnips is in itself illegal, in which case you would also be guilty of creating burtnips *in addition* to the aforementioned crimes.
How exactly does > we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively and there's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves follow from > all matter is merely energy ?
Slashdot Mirror
3-4 shots sounds more like after-lunch thinking.
Bubblesort! :p
> I have barely had time to even touch my Xbox 360 in the past year. I'm too busy working and commuting to work so I can keep my mortgage paid, heat running and food on the table for my family.
That's your fault. If you were living more like a prisoner, for example renting a single room apartment in a highly undesirable neighbourhood, and not having a family, you would have plenty of money left. Then you could get a worse-paying job near your home (you could even sell your car and save a lot on gas: get a bike
instead), and you would have all the time in the world to play on your Xbox.
Instead you chose to have a family and bought an expensive house. If that doesn't make you happy there is nobody to blame but yourself.
> But some don't even give it a first thought and thus you wind up with Java programs that require 1GB of RAM simply for the purpose of moving files between folders (I'm not exaggerating).
That seems... unlikely. What was the name of this program?
> Perhaps the point is that an art style that requires "stream[ing] hundreds of megabytes of texture data at 60 frames per second" isn't the only art style for a fun video game.
No it isn't. That's just you attempting to start a completely irrelevant discussion. In OP's example he explicitly assumed graphics similar to the original game.
You could argue that software uses more memory and cpu-cycles, but apart from that how has quality decreased? Letting Java (or any other language/libraries) do stuff for you decreases the number of errors you make. Surely using a library is better than everyone writing their own string comparison algorithms? People make mistakes, for every n lines of code not written, a bug is averted.
You seem to hate Java but it's not that much slower than other languages such as C despite the 'bloat'. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
Are you trolling?
I assume he's referring to neurons. Those can become quite long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#Anatomy_and_histology
Perhaps you're trolling, I am not.
If you look at the energy required just to cycle through all the values of a 256-bit counter, without doing any other useful work, that's more energy than is released in a supernova. Bruce Schneier has done the math for us: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html
We simply don't have the energy available to do such a thing, regardless of how much faster our computers become.
No, it won't. In the absence of cryptographic weaknesses, a 256-bits key can never be brute-forced, not even in theory.
> Encryption and Peer to Peer networks are going to increase in power, and will be easier to use.
There's really no need for encryption to increase in power. Unless new weaknesses are found, most of the standard encryption schemes will take far longer (by many orders of magnitude) than a human lifetime to break. For the purpose of piracy, that should be long enough; you can't get prosecuted for copyright infringement when you're dead.
> As well, Muslim men often have MANY wives numerating as high as a recent 100 women slaves a franction of their age with many under-13 wives even as young as 5 that are ritually sodomized if not consumed of all innocence like an American male drinks a 6-pack of beer.
For extremely small values of 'often' perhaps. For every guy that has 100 women, 99 guys have to go without. Given that men and women are born in about equal numbers, your baseless accusation of Muslim men is a logical impossibility. Citation needed?
> But a lot of Europeans know English pretty well despite never having set foot in America.
This is true, they are especially common in the UK.
> Not having sex with a menstruating woman is sensible when your main aim is to produce moe children to tend your goats and fight in your wars.
Having sex with a menstruating woman in no way hinders her ability to get pregnant at some other point during the month, so what is the point of banning it?
> If you intend to do the right thing (according to his will) and later it's found that it was actually the opposite of what he wants, it's still fine. You did what you thought he wanted, and that's what counts. The intent. As long as your intentions are good, you'll be saved.
And here I was thinking the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
> And its takes more belief that a single cell organism popped from the nothingness than it does for any ascendent being to create it.
And in your opinion, how much belief does it take to believe in the existence of an ascendent [sic] being? By your own logic, would it not be far more likely for a single cell organism to pop from nothingness, than for an omnipotent omniscient being to pop from nothingness?
Besides, most of science does not involve the origin of life at all. Not even evolution (it only describes the development of life). Only abiogenesis is concerned with the actual 'creation' of life, and unlike your misleading description does not involve single cell organisms 'popping' from nothingness at all. Even if abiogenesis were shown to be incorrect, this would not affect the rest of science at all.
Next time you criticise something at least go through the trouble of educating yourself far enough that you can reasonably fake an educated opinion.
I type dvorak at home, but qwerty almost everywhere else. Turns out my muscle-memory was in large part linked to my keyboard; when I replaced my old one with a different one after it broke, I spent a day in utter confusion as my fingers would keep switching between the two layouts mid-sentence.
So you would prefer to be imprisoned rather than wear a tracking device?
> What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing, really. All replicating things need energy and building materials. Biological lifeforms don't contain significant amounts of tungsten, so these cells have exactly nothing to gain by targeting us. In fact most of our environment does not contain significant amounts of tungsten, so outside the lab, these cells will have no chance of spreading. Even if they make it to a giant tungsten supply, they still need phosphorus and oxygen, and the former is probably not kept in close contact with heaps of tungsten.
And even when our metal overlords have access to all these materials, they will still need energy to actually assemble them.
These cells (assuming they even succeed in getting them to live) will be very harmless indeed.
What a ridiculous concept. Evolving backwards? No such thing.
> Sometimes the bots' data are poisoned (temporarily) by invasions by teenagers, dorks, and jerks from websites I'd rather not name.
Don't be shy, it's called 4chan.
Because to many users, https implies a secure connection to a trusted (by the standard of at least some CA) website. If you want encryption without authentication, please give it another name, such as 'httpe' ('e' for 'encrypted'). Httpe could be exactly the same as https with the exception of blindly accepting self-signed certificates.
What's the Spanish word for cunt? :p
Odd that a school would block words like penis and vagina, it seems to me those words would prove quite useful for biology lessons.
Perhaps the students should just start communicating in Spanish.
> Wait, so you're saying that if I break into your house and start using your furniture to make burtnips (whatever they may be), I'm not illegally making burtnips?
No, however you would be guilty of burglary and destruction of property. That the destruction of my furniture also resulted in the creation of burtnips is irrelevant. Unless making burtnips is in itself illegal, in which case you would also be guilty of creating burtnips *in addition* to the aforementioned crimes.
How exactly does
> we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively and there's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves
follow from
> all matter is merely energy
?
Do explain.