Before last winter's patch, spontaneous 600-800 man battles were quite playable, and 1200 was doable with a reinforced node. However, something went terribly wrong with that expansion, and we now have crippling lag with even 600 on a reinforced node. The issue is causing a lot of upset amongst the game's space-holding contingency (who happen to provide the majority of advertising for CCP). It's an issue that CCP needs to fix soon, or they face a mass exodus of their veteran players.
You're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works: most people have a share ratio of about 1:1. On average, any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.
No offense, but you must have been pretty terrible to have that experience in highsec, or you talked a lot of smack and pissed people off.
I've played the game for over two years, spending significant amounts of time in highsec, lowsec, and nullsec, and I have never been killed in highsec by another player. Not once. Avoiding conflict in high security space is quite easy if you keep your wits about you and don't smack like a child.
Or, you could take that money and buy a 250 gig SATA drive for your PC, thereby not having to worry about pesky things like slow upload speeds. With your plan, it would pay for itself in about seven months.
Radioactive isotopes can emit alpha particles, which are helium nuclei, beta particles, which are an electron emitted from the nucleus when a neutron changes into a proton and an electron, or gamma particles (more accurately rays) which have no mass or charge and are a form of electromagnetic radiation. The closest thing to what you are suggesting would be an ionized hydrogen atom, which is simply a proton. This, however, is not a form of radiation; it's just, well, hydrogen.
No, I have no plan whatsoever to "actually do anything". I personally believe that killing should only be turned to in defense, and only if all forms of negotiation have been attempted; this is hardly the time to use it.
The quote did, however, go along with what was being said by those posters it was replying to. It fit the context.
Kindly remove your foot from your mouth, coward.
And I did not say that purpose does not exist. I said it does not exist as some sort of cosmological constant; it exists in the minds of those who create it.
Now, may I assume that you are using "materialistic" simply to describe a world view that lacks a god, or are you using it in its negative connotation as it has been so many times before, that being to describe the "savages" that don't prescribe to your beliefs?
Science cannot answer why we all are thrown the curves of life and why we suffer.
Sure it can; we are thrown the "curves of life" because, at a base form "shit happens", and the same for why we suffer.
Obviously, you have your world view, and I have mine. Both are equally valid as an interpretation of the evidence at hand, and obviously we aren't going to change each other's.
You still are failing to understand what I am saying. The first poster recommended that we don't try to figure out a why. Instead, he suggested that we accept only a what; not to mention, with no proof to back it up.
For most, the point of science is to find an explanation for something apart from its creation by "god". The creation of the universe itself may be beyond the current scope of our understanding, but that doesn't mean we won't someday find an explanation more plausible than "god did it".
True, but attributing a supposedly unexplainable phenomenon to god and giving up on scientific pursuit, like the parent states, does debunk the purpose of scientific research. Individuals may choose different things to do with knowledge, but if we attribute something to god from the get-go, we will not gain knowledge from it.
How much less blind belief, how much more logical is it to just say somebody built the friggin plane?! You're applying this argument to science? Let's look at the definition of faith:
"belief that is not based on proof" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
Attributing everything to god completely debunks the purpose of scientific research, that purpose being the gain of knowledge by experimentation and observation.
The concept of god was developed because humans lacked the knowledge/skills to explain things for themselves. That concept is now outdated, and holds no weight as an explanation.
i wasn't trying to offend you; i agree with you (and holy shit! i'm using a pc! defending a mac user?!). there is an overwhelming amount of shit for windows.
but, i suppose/.'ers do love an oppurtunity to get at someone else's throat, as i have observed after several months of reading the discussions rather than participating in them.
you've got me there. many designers, editors, etc use macs, and are most likely more worried about their work than whether they have a firewall. as you said, windows is simply more profitable to manufacture malware for.
i think what he's trying to say is that it's easier to create malware for an OS that the overwhelming majority of home users use than to try and create it for the small mac population, many of which are behind corporate firewalls, and linux systems that have constant core updates.
You're right, it doesn't. It's a shame that the fans can't just accept the fact that TOS was underbudgeted, and didn't have the funds to make Klingons look like they were "suppose" to. That way the makers wouldn't have to write stupid story arcs that make little sense trying to explain away these sorts of inconsistancies.
Slashdot Mirror
Before last winter's patch, spontaneous 600-800 man battles were quite playable, and 1200 was doable with a reinforced node. However, something went terribly wrong with that expansion, and we now have crippling lag with even 600 on a reinforced node. The issue is causing a lot of upset amongst the game's space-holding contingency (who happen to provide the majority of advertising for CCP). It's an issue that CCP needs to fix soon, or they face a mass exodus of their veteran players.
You're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works: most people have a share ratio of about 1:1. On average, any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.
No offense, but you must have been pretty terrible to have that experience in highsec, or you talked a lot of smack and pissed people off. I've played the game for over two years, spending significant amounts of time in highsec, lowsec, and nullsec, and I have never been killed in highsec by another player. Not once. Avoiding conflict in high security space is quite easy if you keep your wits about you and don't smack like a child.
If we were to adopt this attitude, the "Singularity" would never occur; it comes as a result of our own innovation and progress.
Or, you could take that money and buy a 250 gig SATA drive for your PC, thereby not having to worry about pesky things like slow upload speeds. With your plan, it would pay for itself in about seven months.
Radioactive isotopes can emit alpha particles, which are helium nuclei, beta particles, which are an electron emitted from the nucleus when a neutron changes into a proton and an electron, or gamma particles (more accurately rays) which have no mass or charge and are a form of electromagnetic radiation. The closest thing to what you are suggesting would be an ionized hydrogen atom, which is simply a proton. This, however, is not a form of radiation; it's just, well, hydrogen.
No, I have no plan whatsoever to "actually do anything". I personally believe that killing should only be turned to in defense, and only if all forms of negotiation have been attempted; this is hardly the time to use it.
The quote did, however, go along with what was being said by those posters it was replying to. It fit the context.
Kindly remove your foot from your mouth, coward.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
~Thomas Jefferson
And I did not say that purpose does not exist. I said it does not exist as some sort of cosmological constant; it exists in the minds of those who create it.
Now, may I assume that you are using "materialistic" simply to describe a world view that lacks a god, or are you using it in its negative connotation as it has been so many times before, that being to describe the "savages" that don't prescribe to your beliefs?
Why is a "purpose" even necessary? "Purpose" is a byproduct of intelligent life; in a universe with no intelligent life, it would be a non-issue.
Sure it can; we are thrown the "curves of life" because, at a base form "shit happens", and the same for why we suffer.
Obviously, you have your world view, and I have mine. Both are equally valid as an interpretation of the evidence at hand, and obviously we aren't going to change each other's.
You still are failing to understand what I am saying. The first poster recommended that we don't try to figure out a why. Instead, he suggested that we accept only a what; not to mention, with no proof to back it up.
For most, the point of science is to find an explanation for something apart from its creation by "god". The creation of the universe itself may be beyond the current scope of our understanding, but that doesn't mean we won't someday find an explanation more plausible than "god did it".
True, but attributing a supposedly unexplainable phenomenon to god and giving up on scientific pursuit, like the parent states, does debunk the purpose of scientific research. Individuals may choose different things to do with knowledge, but if we attribute something to god from the get-go, we will not gain knowledge from it.
"belief that is not based on proof" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
Attributing everything to god completely debunks the purpose of scientific research, that purpose being the gain of knowledge by experimentation and observation.
The concept of god was developed because humans lacked the knowledge/skills to explain things for themselves. That concept is now outdated, and holds no weight as an explanation.
precisely.
i wasn't trying to offend you; i agree with you (and holy shit! i'm using a pc! defending a mac user?!). there is an overwhelming amount of shit for windows.
/.'ers do love an oppurtunity to get at someone else's throat, as i have observed after several months of reading the discussions rather than participating in them.
but, i suppose
you've got me there. many designers, editors, etc use macs, and are most likely more worried about their work than whether they have a firewall. as you said, windows is simply more profitable to manufacture malware for.
i think what he's trying to say is that it's easier to create malware for an OS that the overwhelming majority of home users use than to try and create it for the small mac population, many of which are behind corporate firewalls, and linux systems that have constant core updates.
You're right, it doesn't.
It's a shame that the fans can't just accept the fact that TOS was underbudgeted, and didn't have the funds to make Klingons look like they were "suppose" to. That way the makers wouldn't have to write stupid story arcs that make little sense trying to explain away these sorts of inconsistancies.