Kind of makes you wonder what happens once we design a computer fast enough to accurately simulate physics exactly as in our universe.
How would we limit the universe? Maybe just create a pacman-like solution where hitting the boundary sends you back to the other side. Maybe increase the size of the simulation as you can throw more computing power at it. You'd need a method of interacting with the matter in the universe to make sure the new space is utilized, right?
Why not just create some shit that doesn't ruin the rest of the simulation by interacting in any fashion other than pushing the various systems away from each other so your ant farms don't get too close to one another and fight.
Hah. You've got a good point there. Why waste resources getting a law repealed when it's so easy to bypass?
As for your spammer punishment, well, are you planning on running for elected office at any point in time? I would be happy to distribute literature with your message of freedom and glorious retribution.
Well apparently we are (or at least I am) trolls for distrusting our governments and wishing they'd extend us the same rights corporations seem to enjoy.
Maybe it's the part about shooting them. Anyone who thinks spammers deserve compassion is a fool, as the spammers would shoot any one of us in the face themselves if it earned them a nickel.
Spam and junkmail generate too much tax revenue for the governments to ever actually do away with it.
I would not be surprised if we see companies trying to take on the do-not-call list next.
The spammers and phone harassers don't give two fucks about the massive externalities their business models create. It's time to force them to be considered, at which point it may well become clear that the business models themselves aren't viable.
That or drag the motherfuckers into the streets and shoot them.
If the only evidence the police have on said 'criminal' is a string of bits on his cell phone, they probably didn't have much of a case anyway, and likely shouldn't be arresting this criminal.
I genuinely hope small time 'criminals' continue getting these sorts of victories to the point that our police forces are forced to admit they have failed in the war on consensual acts between adults. The change certainly isn't going to come about while our various wars continue to make a tidy profit for those at the top.
If Apple is willing to sell you a license to use their operating system for $129, the price already has their blessing as 'fair compensation,' or.... they wouldn't sell it for that price.
That price may well (and likely does) come with the assumption that they've already made or will make money off of you on hardware sales, but the consumer is not responsible for a company's assumptions, and most definitely isn't under some weird moral obligation to offer a vendor more money than it's asking simply because he intends to use his product in a way other than the vendor assumes.
For me it was a KT266 motherboard right after your generation. I didn't learn my lesson and figured, "What could possibly go wrong with a kt133a that they hacked a new memory controller onto?"
Turns out I enjoyed memory latency worse than SDR RAM and bandwidth that barely topped the old chipsets, but I got to spend twice as much for the privilege!
Well your statements make sense for someone whose defining life philosophy is maximization of marginal philanthropic utility, but your entire argument presupposes an extremely selfish worldview from the lower classes.
Other people having less in no way obligates someone to forego luxuries. The logic breaks down especially badly when you get to comparable yet different socioeconomic delineations: Is the mom on welfare supposed to feel ashamed for taking her children to a movie once a month because there are people in Africa dying of hunger?
In short, you'd have to be pretty amazingly selfish or stupid to throw around the claims you have, and the people who modded you insightful for your unfounded attempts at inducing class-guilt should be ashamed of themselves.
Well they've had some major players from which to take their cues.
EA, publisher of the NCAA series of sports games, is (or was?) barred by NCAA rules from putting the real players in their games.
From what I remember, they simply offered an extremely powerful custom player creator, and people who purchased the game were given the option of getting a free 'custom player pack' copied to their memory card which contained the entire college rosters of that year.
Care to cite some studies proving a majority, or even a significant minority of steroid users develop gynocomastia or shorten their lives to a statistically significant degree?
You seem fairly educated. Are you not familiar with the use of HCG to prevent testicular atrophy during a period of steroid use?
You were doing so well until you started spouting unfounded populist propaganda.
What occurred last night was unfortunate. It was late, I was tired, excuses excuses.
My initial intent was not to attempt to bully others with my opinions on humor, but more to explain to the seemingly willfully ignorant why they might get funny looks from others in real life social situations after they needlessly quote more material after a reference has been made.
It was a well-intentioned attempt at education turned adversarial after my first post because Valdrax seems intent on proving the hilarity of what has been previously debated, where the AC whose flag I took up was initially himself trying to simply explain others' viewpoints on humor and why they conflict with some 'nerdier' tendencies.
You've bought into the new-age feel-good philosophy that's taken America like cancer. All opinions are not equal, and you must realize that humor itself can be objectively defined to some limited degree.
Making a funny reference involves making a non-obvious connection to something with which your audience is familiar. It's clever. It requires wit.
Extending a reference is exactly that. It is pasting more of the script. All of the intellectual heavy lifting has already been performed. There is no joke. No punchline. No real value at all.
Judging someone's sense of humor gets into tricky territory, but it is easy to objectively view this situation and realize that if no joke is being made, the only fashion in which it can be funny is an ironic one unintended by the author.
He is not defining a whitelist of humor wherein only certain jokes are permitted. He is attempting to describe a single item from what should be a universal comedic blacklist.
Clever references are funny. Continuing the reference beyond its relevant portion is a shallowly vain tactic in which one merely attempts to demonstrate that he also gets the joke and is thus deserving of being held in social esteem at least as high as the original maker of the joke.
It's not humor. It's not a joke. It's pathetic attention whoring borne of an insecure ego, and your getting so defensive at it getting the derision it deserves leads me to believe you're part of the problem.
Stop crying about comedic oppression when what you defend is completely unrelated to humor.
Call me cynical, but this smells a lot more like a convenient budget grab than conscientious federal employees looking out for the environment. A beancounter somewhere noticed that a lot of people like the idea of solar power, and realized saying, "Hey uh, this is too hard. We're going to need two years to do this... assuming we don't get a huge budget boost before then," would quickly move a lot more funding into their hot little hands.
Slashdot Mirror
if you rape a prostitute, it's still rape
I was under the impression that it's shoplifting.
I'd be laughing if I weren't crying.
Your foresight is truth.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=990603&cid=25315155
Yes, exactly my point actually.
Kind of makes you wonder what happens once we design a computer fast enough to accurately simulate physics exactly as in our universe.
How would we limit the universe? Maybe just create a pacman-like solution where hitting the boundary sends you back to the other side. Maybe increase the size of the simulation as you can throw more computing power at it. You'd need a method of interacting with the matter in the universe to make sure the new space is utilized, right?
Why not just create some shit that doesn't ruin the rest of the simulation by interacting in any fashion other than pushing the various systems away from each other so your ant farms don't get too close to one another and fight.
what?
Hah. You've got a good point there. Why waste resources getting a law repealed when it's so easy to bypass?
As for your spammer punishment, well, are you planning on running for elected office at any point in time? I would be happy to distribute literature with your message of freedom and glorious retribution.
Well apparently we are (or at least I am) trolls for distrusting our governments and wishing they'd extend us the same rights corporations seem to enjoy.
Maybe it's the part about shooting them. Anyone who thinks spammers deserve compassion is a fool, as the spammers would shoot any one of us in the face themselves if it earned them a nickel.
Spam and junkmail generate too much tax revenue for the governments to ever actually do away with it.
I would not be surprised if we see companies trying to take on the do-not-call list next.
The spammers and phone harassers don't give two fucks about the massive externalities their business models create. It's time to force them to be considered, at which point it may well become clear that the business models themselves aren't viable.
That or drag the motherfuckers into the streets and shoot them.
Question to mods: Why is someone explaining a joke modded to +5 funny?
He explicitly stated what the parent post already obviously implied. No joke extension. Where is the humor?
If the only evidence the police have on said 'criminal' is a string of bits on his cell phone, they probably didn't have much of a case anyway, and likely shouldn't be arresting this criminal.
I genuinely hope small time 'criminals' continue getting these sorts of victories to the point that our police forces are forced to admit they have failed in the war on consensual acts between adults. The change certainly isn't going to come about while our various wars continue to make a tidy profit for those at the top.
You sure used a lot of words to argue against something said tongue-in-cheek. Humor not your strong point?
you paid for internet porn?
The editors should know better.
You must be knew here.
If Apple is willing to sell you a license to use their operating system for $129, the price already has their blessing as 'fair compensation,' or.... they wouldn't sell it for that price.
That price may well (and likely does) come with the assumption that they've already made or will make money off of you on hardware sales, but the consumer is not responsible for a company's assumptions, and most definitely isn't under some weird moral obligation to offer a vendor more money than it's asking simply because he intends to use his product in a way other than the vendor assumes.
For me it was a KT266 motherboard right after your generation. I didn't learn my lesson and figured, "What could possibly go wrong with a kt133a that they hacked a new memory controller onto?"
Turns out I enjoyed memory latency worse than SDR RAM and bandwidth that barely topped the old chipsets, but I got to spend twice as much for the privilege!
Well your statements make sense for someone whose defining life philosophy is maximization of marginal philanthropic utility, but your entire argument presupposes an extremely selfish worldview from the lower classes.
Other people having less in no way obligates someone to forego luxuries. The logic breaks down especially badly when you get to comparable yet different socioeconomic delineations: Is the mom on welfare supposed to feel ashamed for taking her children to a movie once a month because there are people in Africa dying of hunger?
In short, you'd have to be pretty amazingly selfish or stupid to throw around the claims you have, and the people who modded you insightful for your unfounded attempts at inducing class-guilt should be ashamed of themselves.
Well they've had some major players from which to take their cues.
EA, publisher of the NCAA series of sports games, is (or was?) barred by NCAA rules from putting the real players in their games.
From what I remember, they simply offered an extremely powerful custom player creator, and people who purchased the game were given the option of getting a free 'custom player pack' copied to their memory card which contained the entire college rosters of that year.
Care to cite some studies proving a majority, or even a significant minority of steroid users develop gynocomastia or shorten their lives to a statistically significant degree?
You seem fairly educated. Are you not familiar with the use of HCG to prevent testicular atrophy during a period of steroid use?
You were doing so well until you started spouting unfounded populist propaganda.
What occurred last night was unfortunate. It was late, I was tired, excuses excuses.
My initial intent was not to attempt to bully others with my opinions on humor, but more to explain to the seemingly willfully ignorant why they might get funny looks from others in real life social situations after they needlessly quote more material after a reference has been made.
It was a well-intentioned attempt at education turned adversarial after my first post because Valdrax seems intent on proving the hilarity of what has been previously debated, where the AC whose flag I took up was initially himself trying to simply explain others' viewpoints on humor and why they conflict with some 'nerdier' tendencies.
You've bought into the new-age feel-good philosophy that's taken America like cancer. All opinions are not equal, and you must realize that humor itself can be objectively defined to some limited degree.
Making a funny reference involves making a non-obvious connection to something with which your audience is familiar. It's clever. It requires wit.
Extending a reference is exactly that. It is pasting more of the script. All of the intellectual heavy lifting has already been performed. There is no joke. No punchline. No real value at all.
Judging someone's sense of humor gets into tricky territory, but it is easy to objectively view this situation and realize that if no joke is being made, the only fashion in which it can be funny is an ironic one unintended by the author.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
He is not defining a whitelist of humor wherein only certain jokes are permitted. He is attempting to describe a single item from what should be a universal comedic blacklist.
Clever references are funny. Continuing the reference beyond its relevant portion is a shallowly vain tactic in which one merely attempts to demonstrate that he also gets the joke and is thus deserving of being held in social esteem at least as high as the original maker of the joke.
It's not humor. It's not a joke. It's pathetic attention whoring borne of an insecure ego, and your getting so defensive at it getting the derision it deserves leads me to believe you're part of the problem.
Stop crying about comedic oppression when what you defend is completely unrelated to humor.
It probably has a lot to do with the people trying to convince themselves that their shiny new product was worth buying.
Ah, but what happens when you get something like Global Warming combined with air travel increasing the territory for malaria?
A resurgence in the popularity of Gin & Tonics?
You're right: Monopolies certainly do possess the ability to manipulate otherwise free markets to their designs.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
And they need two fucking years to do this why?
Call me cynical, but this smells a lot more like a convenient budget grab than conscientious federal employees looking out for the environment. A beancounter somewhere noticed that a lot of people like the idea of solar power, and realized saying, "Hey uh, this is too hard. We're going to need two years to do this... assuming we don't get a huge budget boost before then," would quickly move a lot more funding into their hot little hands.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that large investment banks are/were unregulated and ungoverned?
That's hilarious.