I'll take this as you having no constructive arguments then.
Then you must be unable to read.
However, I'll be happy to tell you some arguments if you show the tiniest sign of actually being interested in hearing them for any other reason than to disagree with them.
For instance, you could take a guess at why I refererred to statistics. Can you think of any reason why that would be relevant?
Why would I? You haven't presented anything even worth replying to yet, just unquestioningly parroting garbage. If you can't even see through that kind of bullshit yourself, what chance do I have? You obviously have something you want very much to believe, and you're not going to let facts get in the way of that.
Man, you just don't know shit about how statistics work, do you? You just get your opinions pre-packaged on the internet, and parrot them as if you came up with them yourself.
That's ok, but the strip should still stand on its own.
"Should"? Sure, it would be nice if it did, but who created this rule that this has to be the case?
As it stands, Achewood's reliance on extremely character-driven humor and themes developed over long times allows it to do jokes that are a lot funnier and more clever than what a comic of self-contained strips can manage. The downside is that it is harsher on a new reader, but if you make the effort to pick it up, it is far more rewarding than most any comic out there.
This comic does not work if you jump into the middle of it. You have to read it from the start to get a good feel for the characters, as it is extremely character-driven.
It's about 15 times less common than "imminent", according to Google, and at least 30 times less common than "inherent", and those are somewhat uncommon words already.
Well, not quite. "lose" and "loose" are both common words, and it's easy to see how people get confused about them. I doubt, however, that the submitter knew the word "immanent" and just confused it with "imminent". He just misspelled it, and by accident happened to spell another real and extremely uncommon word.
What the hell is this supposed "theory" you are talking about? I'm pretty sure you're arguing against somebody who only exists in your head at this point.
Nobody said that investigation was "inherently malicious". All that was said that if you are a server on the internet, and somebody portscans you, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of that person being malicious.
The original point was about counting portscans as attacks for the purposes of statistics. In that case, I'd definitely say innocent port scans are negligable.
If you can't explain it to me, the interested layman, you may need to put your theory back in the crucible o' truth.
Why do you assume the universe would exist for you to understand?
Humans are simple creatures, being able to see only the tiniest slice of reality. Why should the vastness of the universe necessarily be confined to the tiny fraction of it we find comfortable?
We are all prisoners in Plato's cave, and you are demanding that any explanation of the world would have to be made in terms of the shadows on the wall, or else you call it untrue.
I get the whole 13.7 bn years means that light can only have travelled 13.7 bn light-years and thus that's as far as we can see, but I don't see how the universe can have a radius larger that 13.7 bn light-years.
That is because it is space itself that expanded, not the matter in it. This is a somewhat problematic concept for one's everyday intuition to grasp.
The favourite simplified explanation of this is a balloon: Take a partially inflated balloon, and draw a bunch of dots on it. The dots are the matter in the universe. Now inflate it, and they will seem to move apart, and the further apart they are, the faster they will seem to move in relation to each other.
However, each dot is still stationary in relation to its local space. There could be a maximum speed at which you can move along the surface, but as the dots are not actually moving, they can seemingly move faster than this maximum speed.
There is a lot wrong with this explanation, so don't try to extrapolate anything more from it, but hopefully it gets you the first step along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Nintendo takes plenty of time to develop rock-solid machines that are massively popular, while Pandora...
You know, that's what Second Life is. Been around for years now.
And it's horrible.
I'll take this as you having no constructive arguments then.
Then you must be unable to read.
However, I'll be happy to tell you some arguments if you show the tiniest sign of actually being interested in hearing them for any other reason than to disagree with them.
For instance, you could take a guess at why I refererred to statistics. Can you think of any reason why that would be relevant?
Why would I? You haven't presented anything even worth replying to yet, just unquestioningly parroting garbage. If you can't even see through that kind of bullshit yourself, what chance do I have? You obviously have something you want very much to believe, and you're not going to let facts get in the way of that.
Man, you just don't know shit about how statistics work, do you? You just get your opinions pre-packaged on the internet, and parrot them as if you came up with them yourself.
That's ok, but the strip should still stand on its own.
"Should"? Sure, it would be nice if it did, but who created this rule that this has to be the case?
As it stands, Achewood's reliance on extremely character-driven humor and themes developed over long times allows it to do jokes that are a lot funnier and more clever than what a comic of self-contained strips can manage. The downside is that it is harsher on a new reader, but if you make the effort to pick it up, it is far more rewarding than most any comic out there.
This comic does not work if you jump into the middle of it. You have to read it from the start to get a good feel for the characters, as it is extremely character-driven.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be because you seem ridiculous to most people. It's gotta be a conspiracy!
You're not really doing your cause any favours with that post, you know.
It's about 15 times less common than "imminent", according to Google, and at least 30 times less common than "inherent", and those are somewhat uncommon words already.
Well, not quite. "lose" and "loose" are both common words, and it's easy to see how people get confused about them. I doubt, however, that the submitter knew the word "immanent" and just confused it with "imminent". He just misspelled it, and by accident happened to spell another real and extremely uncommon word.
"Immanent"? If you're going to try and talk fancy, you really should make doubly sure you are actually spelling correctly.
Because on consoles, you actually have to make a good game from the start, and you can't just offload that work on the modders.
What the hell is this supposed "theory" you are talking about? I'm pretty sure you're arguing against somebody who only exists in your head at this point.
What is it with people being so hell-bent on missing the point here?
Nobody said that investigation was "inherently malicious". All that was said that if you are a server on the internet, and somebody portscans you, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of that person being malicious.
The original point was about counting portscans as attacks for the purposes of statistics. In that case, I'd definitely say innocent port scans are negligable.
If you can't explain it to me, the interested layman, you may need to put your theory back in the crucible o' truth.
Why do you assume the universe would exist for you to understand?
Humans are simple creatures, being able to see only the tiniest slice of reality. Why should the vastness of the universe necessarily be confined to the tiny fraction of it we find comfortable?
We are all prisoners in Plato's cave, and you are demanding that any explanation of the world would have to be made in terms of the shadows on the wall, or else you call it untrue.
Making random claims without any basis is pretty much the exact opposite of "logic".
Then what caused all the events that we can directly observe as having happened before humans existed?
I get the whole 13.7 bn years means that light can only have travelled 13.7 bn light-years and thus that's as far as we can see, but I don't see how the universe can have a radius larger that 13.7 bn light-years.
That is because it is space itself that expanded, not the matter in it. This is a somewhat problematic concept for one's everyday intuition to grasp.
The favourite simplified explanation of this is a balloon: Take a partially inflated balloon, and draw a bunch of dots on it. The dots are the matter in the universe. Now inflate it, and they will seem to move apart, and the further apart they are, the faster they will seem to move in relation to each other.
However, each dot is still stationary in relation to its local space. There could be a maximum speed at which you can move along the surface, but as the dots are not actually moving, they can seemingly move faster than this maximum speed.
There is a lot wrong with this explanation, so don't try to extrapolate anything more from it, but hopefully it gets you the first step along the way.
Well, how cute. A completely inaccurate analogy.
We're at kindergarten level of discourse here, apparently.
Christ, you people are masters at being intentionally daft.
Look, pretending to not understand the argument doesn't make you right, OK? It just make you look dumb.
Why would they want to know that, if it's not a machine they have access to?
As exemplified by the submitter of the article.
It could. But it hardly ever is. And that's all that was claimed.