Also, the lack of any tactile feedback would be terrible. I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if a million iPhone owning schmucks yelled out in agreement then were suddenly silenced by a smiling portrait of Steve Jobs giving them the finger.
DH, though difficult to "eavesdrop" on, is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks just like most no-previous-knowledge key exchanges. In fact it can be quite trivial to do this if the attacker can respond faster than the opposing device by standing in the middle/having better hardware.
and it's pretty useful. I don't know why everyone is complaining in the comments so far. This user-participates-in-ranking magic is not exactly news, and anyone who has studied or worked in information retrieval knows this. With a large enough number of benign participants, it should work.
And since people are bringing up Google as competition: Google Search has an estimated retrieval accuracy* of around 10%. Not very hard to beat, except that the Internet is a rather large document set. Have you ever browsed to the 50th page of results on Google? Good. Don't.
The problem is that to give decent results an engine needs time, and people are just not prepared to wait. That's why general purpose search engines on the web try to give you the best answer on the top hit. Results deteriorate a little (next 10) then improve again (next 20) then go completely nuts as you proceed. This fits the business plan, and almost everyone is happy. Google may have superb query processing and a decent Index system, but retrieval can be made to improve a lot if, say, there is an option to wait a little and get something better. Maybe Wikia can do this. If the users who get the most "insightful" (ergo time consuming) results get their feedback weighed more heavily than the point-and-click folks, this project can be very interesting.
*accuracy is a complicated metric that involves efficiency (fraction of retrieved that is relevant) and recall (fraction of relevant that is retrieved).
If you're a controversial (or at least targeted) political figure then I guess it doesn't make a difference whether or not you get anonymous online threat of assasination, because you are in danger literally every day. 1984-type environments don't solve that, and it is rather naive to think otherwise. If you're not a targeted political figure/notable person and you are getting anonymous death threats online, you should probably ignore them. Or I will kill you.
Also, the OP defeats his own claim of the necessity of this "benign" intervention by the gov. because the cause of the large amount of death threats/defamations/silly activity is already known according to him. What is there to investigate? And if it wasn't 20-30 year olds in their mothers' basements it will more likely be teenagers in their mothers' basements. I am not willing to sacrifice my privacy and have totalitarian control over my communications to cater to the possibility that one of these millions of teenagers may actually be screwed up enough to be serious. That is something that common sense and normal precautions will have to take care of, I'm afraid. Reports should simply be made to the ISP/forum provider when things get annoying. Life goes on.
It is worth noting that no reasonable measure of privacy can be expected by communicating unencrypted information over the internet in the first place. But officially announced totalitarian practices are another thing entirely, and I think the Japanese people should oppose them with all their might.
That's pretty dumb. You're calling Big Content evil for locking down their IP rights, and to get back at them you're locking down your IP rights. Do the Right Thing, go fully public domain. Which is why in the future we may see more advanced forms of licensing that take into account further information than the simple "commercial use" label, like say the type of commercial activity and licensing schemes used by the software house/entity making use of your intellectual output. It is not wrong to lock down things against corporations in the same way that it is not wrong to put dictators in jail. You are not being hypocritical when you do this. You are being practical and just.
This whole discussion is about a balance of ideology and practicality. As usual commentators will question the 2/500 statistic, question the moral authority of the people involved, dive into profound debates on IP and CopyRight, dive further into the nature of information, invention and creativity itself as related to basic human rights, maybe host a little flamewar on the side between socialists and free market fans(when the discussion on ownership gets all fiery), and finally come to grips with the fact that they are arguing about extremely difficult political issues that go back to the concepts of governmental intervention and obscure moral philosophies.
Between the commercial secrecy that keeps the free market afloat and the openness that is the grounds for scientific work and general human civilization, society always manages to hack together a solution for each situation(legal or not). Strict ideological stances are useless on these intricate issues - this is economics and ethics you're talking about, for gates' sake. Come on. Controversy here is natural.
1) Out of the box, you don't have services running you can exploit. Of course there are. Just because they are less well known/unpublished does not mean they don't exist. Undocumented holes exist in practically everything, possibly even OpenBSD kernels. Why do you think those exploits cost hundreds of thousands of $$?
If you have a network stack, you are remotely hackable.
You need to factor in some bias concerning the driver's gender, whether or not they are in an SUV, and some sort of assholery measure (choice and volume of music playing can be of help here) plus the state you're driving in.
For e.g, the case of an elderly asian woman driving a black SUV with the windows rolled down and Frank Sinatra playing on some god foresaken radio frequency in Idaho, generally means you have to do no further calculations. There is no accident.
Ergo, I am in favor of various forms of racial profiling and gender discrimination (transvestites drive very well) when distributing tickets/fines and identifying the culprit. Political correctness will not help lower your blood pressure, you tools.
I think you are mixing things up. First of all, if it was indoctrination, honor would not have spread as a concept to all corners of the earth as a central part of an individual's sense of worth among his/her peers. Like religion, honor is fueled by instinct, and that is how they can be better understood and controlled so that the terrible things you speak of don't happen.
Terrible things have happened in the name of honor because it is egoistical in nature, and egos make people blind. Still: I am honorable by holding true to my word while others lie, or withstanding torture in jail so my army's secrets remain secrets. I am honorable when I refuse bribery and do "good" and forbid "evil" even when I know many will not follow that creed. I am honorable in the battlefield and the science lab and in both cases my face ends up on postage stamps, because society will rever those that further it's survival no matter how, particularly when that involves a terrible sacrifice by the individual themselves. That is all it is: an egoistic reward of recognition by society of an individual's efforts, in light of the rules that society puts down.
All the things you mentioned are not problems with "honor" itself, just perversions of the meaning in certain periods of time in a particular society, or even unrelated hypocrisy. For example:
while you were supposed to afford chivalry and honour to the enemy nobles and knights, because they could be ransomed for good money, it was perfectly ok to kill prisoners if they're pesants and mercenary. Good, so what does that have to do with honor itself? This is just an example of people being bloodthirsty cowards and using the "honorable" position of their captured enemy to their benefit.
and those rules of chivalry only applied if you weren't outnumbered or something (See, the Black Prince.) So they were hypocrites. And?
and while chest-thumping about honour and chivalry in battle, it was ok to loot the peasants' grain for your troops and horses along your way. Both enemy peasants and your own. Most societies would look down on that as dishonorable, but it is the indoctrination of the men in power that gives greed and cowardice the green light. Don't blame honor, blame medieval European indoctrination.
And just so I'm not so euro-centric, the Japanese atrocities in WW2 were almost all motivated by a fucked-up feudal idea of "honour" too. Exactly: a fucked-up feudal idea of honour. The keyword here is fucked-up. All other societies looking at most of those atrocities would not call them honorable, and notice the completely different malevolent flavor here in using the word honor (and the "rewards" that come with it) to the medieval European examples. Cue further differences to the mideast..etc.
Summary: human egos and human greed can and will play on every other psychological nuance evolution has induced into our reasoning and feelings, but they do not have to be in control. In today's civilized/industrialized society, we can be honorable without being brainwashed, and we can enjoy the fact that we know the difference.
All "ideas" stemming from human emotion are the product of evolved psychological instincts, which are all "imaginary", but likely to be important nonetheless.
Your disgust at killing babies is every bit as imaginary as your resilience in withholding your own desires because of your vow to serve the betterment of society in some way (i.e honor). Evolution explains everything.
Our testicles, for example, hang from our undersides dangerously exposed, just because some protein denatures at core body temperatures. Apparently something needs to be redesigned Please speak for yourself, I like my testicles where they are thankyouverymuch. You might at well argue that we should have our genitals protectively hidden deep back in our throats and that we inseminate the females by spurting out the damn seed while we french kiss. or something. Wait, that was awful, sorry.
While there is probably a lot that can be improved in the engineering of human bodies, I find it slightly disheartening that after thousands of years of learning we are still unable to create a single complex living cell without help from nature. When we do, it will be the greatest feat of engineering ever, and I will party like hell.
This is all an argument that is philosophical in nature, and it is good to be talking about this (although I am not a physicist myself, still a student) because it is important to know what we are trying to achieve. Science tries to make testable predictions that are either satisfied or refuted empirically. That is true, but why does science try to do this? What is interesting about testable predictions is that they provide a testable model of some subset of the universe, and we seek models of the universe (particularly complete, self consistent models)because our desire is to understand what exactly the universe is, and to make true statements about it's nature.
True statements are never approximations, unless the statements highlight the approximation. Why do you laugh at the idea of there being an absolute truth/complete model of the universe? If you were arguing on meta-mathematical grounds (Godel's work)I would understand, but I doubt this. You also do not sound like a religious nutjob who has to bring in a deity to explain the way things work. Why are you against the idea that a simple (or incredibly complex) set of basic truths that are inherent in the universe are grounds for a complete theory (or rather a complete model)? If we are building approximations that "work" then they must be approximations of something that is not an approximation. This something is what we strive to find.
You keep bringing up how we still "use" old models that fail in some situation.. I remind you again that this is the engineering business, not the scientific pursuit. Engineers are quite happy with something that works for what they are doing, because what they are doing is a human endeavor. They are not after "truths", they are just contributing to human civilization, and will try to do that with minimal information. Scientists (at least theoretical physicists) are not interested in "doing things" at all. Other people can use the knowledge to "do things". Scientists want to know.
So yes, QM and General Relativity are "wrong", or at least incomplete. Once we find out where exactly the incorrect assumptions are, we will move on, and hopefully after enough of these fundamental revelations, human beings can understand the universe as best as it can be understood. At that point physics will have done its "real" job and only the ramifications of the physical fundamentals will be approached. I hope it happens in my lifetime and that I contribute to it. It's the most meaningful (probably the only meaningful) thing a human being can aspire to do.
I don't know enough about the original debate to say anything useful, but you said 2 things that are very interesting:
"Relativity didn't prove that Newtonian physics was wrong"
and
"Quantum Mechanics didn't prove that simpler models of atoms were completely flawed and false"
This is untrue. Newtonian mechanics were as false on some issues as the greek earth-wind-fire-air universe was false. Just because they were a better approximation does not mean that certain statements made by the proposed "laws" do not come out as false once you inspect them closely. Similarly, the classical atomic model is blatantly false in that it cannot even attempt to explain the phenomena that QM was created to address. When your model fails at some point, that's the end of it. You don't look back and say "oh it wasn't so bad". It's just wrong. A particular postulate it is making about the universe is not true, and that is all that matters.
Modern science is not interested in high school labs - we are interested in an absolute truth stemming from mathematical necessity, if such truth exists or can exist. Einstein proved the classical physics wrong by a thought experiment in a single piece of paper making a single assumption. That is the spirit of modern science. Maybe to human beings the magnitude of the error in some hypothesis is measured by how much that error affects human life, but if that were the case we would have abandoned much of physics and astrophysics a long time ago. Half-truths may work for the engineer, but not for the scientist.
This is how flame wars begin. Can I just say something about your mom and be done with it?
PS: You were joking, but artificial intelligence, CS theory and other mathematically-based fields are very much scientific in nature and it is a little harsh to dismiss decades of scientific work on these matters. Hypotheses and theories do exist in mathematics, and CS is fancy mathematics.
You cannot refute centuries of astute human observation. And you sound like you're not detecting the humor everyone is throwing at you. Are you taking us seriously, by any chance?
You are recording a single event occurance in the flip of a coin. In contrast, you are looking for millions of potentially dependent or conditionally independent occurances when you do a study about something as complex as human DNA changes. 270 people out of billions is not a representative sample size, unless the study is very simplistic. In fact it probably is, and I've RTFA.
Oh yeah? First off, you have a wife, which implies you have a human sexual partner, which is an issue of concern in and of itself. We're not going to talk about this, but I just want you to know we regard you with extreme suspicion as a result of that statement.
Second, you cannot offer contradicting examples "in lieu" of evidence, you arrogant vagina. Your attempt at grammatical decor is so disgusting, so contorted, you could substitute that sentence in for a whole week of pr0n videos at any old BDSM site and the clientele wouldn't mind. Then you have the nerve (I won't say balls, because you have apparently lost them a long ass time ago) to use the word "lynchpin"... in the *very next sentence*. I am appalled.
My computer and I solve problems rationally. My thesis supervisor and I solve problems rationally. But a wife? Logic? Are you even listening to yourself here? Next you'll be telling us your wife doesn't ask you what you're doing in the bathroom or try to irritate you when you're watching football on TV, or argue incessantly about silly little things in a high pitched voice just to get your attention. If she has boobies, then she will do all these things no matter what sequence of characters you pronounce before her name, and no matter how big her contribution to the PhD-thesis-factory that academic institutions have turned into this century. Enlightened, yeah. You poor man. And there's this certain time of the month, a very special time of the month... hell, why am I even trying. You're a lost case.
You know what, I will stop right here rather than give you a run down of factual evidence that irrational behavior is part of the exam females have to pass to ensure healthy breast development, because you are so painfully brainwashed that any attempt to re-educate you on the subject will have negative consequences on your relationship with your "wife". If you don't have the balls (sorry, never mind) to stand upright and ruffle the hair on your chest and holler out at the stupidity of what the woman is doing, then nothing good can come of this. You may stop solving things logically together. Imagine that. Or maybe you'll break down in tears and tell her to forgive you for leaving the toilet seat up. I won't have that happen to *any* man, even a clueless schmuck like you. It's just wrong.
I run into strange people on the internets... unconceivable, twisted minds. Yet in spite of all your pussyfooting around and your fear of the ad infinitum, you are the best candidate for the male savior of feminism I have seen thus far. Well done, you have my vote.
No it isn't. I have lived with somebody who has top security clearance and works as defense contractor for the DoD, and their laptop (on which most of their work, some of which is classified, is done) is connected to the internet from a static IP address at home every day.
That's how we "reckon" the nature of the universe. It is not the nature of the universe. That nature is indeed absolutely true, whatever it is. The sad thing is that it will probably not be provable once we identify it, given that mathematical logic is itself inherently inconsistent.
Slashdot Mirror
DH, though difficult to "eavesdrop" on, is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks just like most no-previous-knowledge key exchanges. In fact it can be quite trivial to do this if the attacker can respond faster than the opposing device by standing in the middle/having better hardware.
and it's pretty useful. I don't know why everyone is complaining in the comments so far. This user-participates-in-ranking magic is not exactly news, and anyone who has studied or worked in information retrieval knows this. With a large enough number of benign participants, it should work.
And since people are bringing up Google as competition: Google Search has an estimated retrieval accuracy* of around 10%. Not very hard to beat, except that the Internet is a rather large document set. Have you ever browsed to the 50th page of results on Google? Good. Don't.
The problem is that to give decent results an engine needs time, and people are just not prepared to wait. That's why general purpose search engines on the web try to give you the best answer on the top hit. Results deteriorate a little (next 10) then improve again (next 20) then go completely nuts as you proceed. This fits the business plan, and almost everyone is happy. Google may have superb query processing and a decent Index system, but retrieval can be made to improve a lot if, say, there is an option to wait a little and get something better. Maybe Wikia can do this. If the users who get the most "insightful" (ergo time consuming) results get their feedback weighed more heavily than the point-and-click folks, this project can be very interesting.
*accuracy is a complicated metric that involves efficiency (fraction of retrieved that is relevant) and recall (fraction of relevant that is retrieved).
Ballmer can help you launch chairs, not fireworks. Use FOSS for a happy new year.
O Rly? Big Brother loves you.
If you're a controversial (or at least targeted) political figure then I guess it doesn't make a difference whether or not you get anonymous online threat of assasination, because you are in danger literally every day. 1984-type environments don't solve that, and it is rather naive to think otherwise. If you're not a targeted political figure/notable person and you are getting anonymous death threats online, you should probably ignore them. Or I will kill you.
Also, the OP defeats his own claim of the necessity of this "benign" intervention by the gov. because the cause of the large amount of death threats/defamations/silly activity is already known according to him. What is there to investigate? And if it wasn't 20-30 year olds in their mothers' basements it will more likely be teenagers in their mothers' basements. I am not willing to sacrifice my privacy and have totalitarian control over my communications to cater to the possibility that one of these millions of teenagers may actually be screwed up enough to be serious. That is something that common sense and normal precautions will have to take care of, I'm afraid. Reports should simply be made to the ISP/forum provider when things get annoying. Life goes on.
It is worth noting that no reasonable measure of privacy can be expected by communicating unencrypted information over the internet in the first place. But officially announced totalitarian practices are another thing entirely, and I think the Japanese people should oppose them with all their might.
This whole discussion is about a balance of ideology and practicality. As usual commentators will question the 2/500 statistic, question the moral authority of the people involved, dive into profound debates on IP and CopyRight, dive further into the nature of information, invention and creativity itself as related to basic human rights, maybe host a little flamewar on the side between socialists and free market fans(when the discussion on ownership gets all fiery), and finally come to grips with the fact that they are arguing about extremely difficult political issues that go back to the concepts of governmental intervention and obscure moral philosophies.
Between the commercial secrecy that keeps the free market afloat and the openness that is the grounds for scientific work and general human civilization, society always manages to hack together a solution for each situation(legal or not). Strict ideological stances are useless on these intricate issues - this is economics and ethics you're talking about, for gates' sake. Come on. Controversy here is natural.
The Matrix theory is BS, because it doesn't take into account that we have Chuck Norris.
If you have a network stack, you are remotely hackable.
You need to factor in some bias concerning the driver's gender, whether or not they are in an SUV, and some sort of assholery measure (choice and volume of music playing can be of help here) plus the state you're driving in.
For e.g, the case of an elderly asian woman driving a black SUV with the windows rolled down and Frank Sinatra playing on some god foresaken radio frequency in Idaho, generally means you have to do no further calculations. There is no accident.
Ergo, I am in favor of various forms of racial profiling and gender discrimination (transvestites drive very well) when distributing tickets/fines and identifying the culprit. Political correctness will not help lower your blood pressure, you tools.
-I just hope my processes don't get scheduling like Delta flights.
...etc..etc
-It would be awesome if Fedora gets renamed to Redhat Linux Economy Edition.
-
1)Allow more packets to be sent than you can possibly handle
2)Delay said packets citing bad network conditions
3)????
4)Profit!
Terrible things have happened in the name of honor because it is egoistical in nature, and egos make people blind. Still: I am honorable by holding true to my word while others lie, or withstanding torture in jail so my army's secrets remain secrets. I am honorable when I refuse bribery and do "good" and forbid "evil" even when I know many will not follow that creed. I am honorable in the battlefield and the science lab and in both cases my face ends up on postage stamps, because society will rever those that further it's survival no matter how, particularly when that involves a terrible sacrifice by the individual themselves. That is all it is: an egoistic reward of recognition by society of an individual's efforts, in light of the rules that society puts down.
All the things you mentioned are not problems with "honor" itself, just perversions of the meaning in certain periods of time in a particular society, or even unrelated hypocrisy. For example: while you were supposed to afford chivalry and honour to the enemy nobles and knights, because they could be ransomed for good money, it was perfectly ok to kill prisoners if they're pesants and mercenary. Good, so what does that have to do with honor itself? This is just an example of people being bloodthirsty cowards and using the "honorable" position of their captured enemy to their benefit. and those rules of chivalry only applied if you weren't outnumbered or something (See, the Black Prince.) So they were hypocrites. And? and while chest-thumping about honour and chivalry in battle, it was ok to loot the peasants' grain for your troops and horses along your way. Both enemy peasants and your own. Most societies would look down on that as dishonorable, but it is the indoctrination of the men in power that gives greed and cowardice the green light. Don't blame honor, blame medieval European indoctrination. And just so I'm not so euro-centric, the Japanese atrocities in WW2 were almost all motivated by a fucked-up feudal idea of "honour" too. Exactly: a fucked-up feudal idea of honour. The keyword here is fucked-up. All other societies looking at most of those atrocities would not call them honorable, and notice the completely different malevolent flavor here in using the word honor (and the "rewards" that come with it) to the medieval European examples. Cue further differences to the mideast..etc.
Summary: human egos and human greed can and will play on every other psychological nuance evolution has induced into our reasoning and feelings, but they do not have to be in control. In today's civilized/industrialized society, we can be honorable without being brainwashed, and we can enjoy the fact that we know the difference.
All "ideas" stemming from human emotion are the product of evolved psychological instincts, which are all "imaginary", but likely to be important nonetheless.
Your disgust at killing babies is every bit as imaginary as your resilience in withholding your own desires because of your vow to serve the betterment of society in some way (i.e honor). Evolution explains everything.
These things do happen you know:
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC85598720071219
While there is probably a lot that can be improved in the engineering of human bodies, I find it slightly disheartening that after thousands of years of learning we are still unable to create a single complex living cell without help from nature. When we do, it will be the greatest feat of engineering ever, and I will party like hell.
Well put. That was refreshingly beautiful - every post about MS software (windows in particular) should have something about nihilism included.
This is all an argument that is philosophical in nature, and it is good to be talking about this (although I am not a physicist myself, still a student) because it is important to know what we are trying to achieve. Science tries to make testable predictions that are either satisfied or refuted empirically. That is true, but why does science try to do this? What is interesting about testable predictions is that they provide a testable model of some subset of the universe, and we seek models of the universe (particularly complete, self consistent models)because our desire is to understand what exactly the universe is, and to make true statements about it's nature.
True statements are never approximations, unless the statements highlight the approximation. Why do you laugh at the idea of there being an absolute truth/complete model of the universe? If you were arguing on meta-mathematical grounds (Godel's work)I would understand, but I doubt this. You also do not sound like a religious nutjob who has to bring in a deity to explain the way things work. Why are you against the idea that a simple (or incredibly complex) set of basic truths that are inherent in the universe are grounds for a complete theory (or rather a complete model)? If we are building approximations that "work" then they must be approximations of something that is not an approximation. This something is what we strive to find.
You keep bringing up how we still "use" old models that fail in some situation.. I remind you again that this is the engineering business, not the scientific pursuit. Engineers are quite happy with something that works for what they are doing, because what they are doing is a human endeavor. They are not after "truths", they are just contributing to human civilization, and will try to do that with minimal information. Scientists (at least theoretical physicists) are not interested in "doing things" at all. Other people can use the knowledge to "do things". Scientists want to know.
So yes, QM and General Relativity are "wrong", or at least incomplete. Once we find out where exactly the incorrect assumptions are, we will move on, and hopefully after enough of these fundamental revelations, human beings can understand the universe as best as it can be understood. At that point physics will have done its "real" job and only the ramifications of the physical fundamentals will be approached. I hope it happens in my lifetime and that I contribute to it. It's the most meaningful (probably the only meaningful) thing a human being can aspire to do.
I don't know enough about the original debate to say anything useful, but you said 2 things that are very interesting:
"Relativity didn't prove that Newtonian physics was wrong"
and
"Quantum Mechanics didn't prove that simpler models of atoms were completely flawed and false"
This is untrue. Newtonian mechanics were as false on some issues as the greek earth-wind-fire-air universe was false. Just because they were a better approximation does not mean that certain statements made by the proposed "laws" do not come out as false once you inspect them closely. Similarly, the classical atomic model is blatantly false in that it cannot even attempt to explain the phenomena that QM was created to address. When your model fails at some point, that's the end of it. You don't look back and say "oh it wasn't so bad". It's just wrong. A particular postulate it is making about the universe is not true, and that is all that matters.
Modern science is not interested in high school labs - we are interested in an absolute truth stemming from mathematical necessity, if such truth exists or can exist. Einstein proved the classical physics wrong by a thought experiment in a single piece of paper making a single assumption. That is the spirit of modern science. Maybe to human beings the magnitude of the error in some hypothesis is measured by how much that error affects human life, but if that were the case we would have abandoned much of physics and astrophysics a long time ago. Half-truths may work for the engineer, but not for the scientist.
This is how flame wars begin. Can I just say something about your mom and be done with it?
PS: You were joking, but artificial intelligence, CS theory and other mathematically-based fields are very much scientific in nature and it is a little harsh to dismiss decades of scientific work on these matters. Hypotheses and theories do exist in mathematics, and CS is fancy mathematics.
The OP was looking for confirmation, the GP provided it. All is well. Moderators: nothing to see here, please move along.
You cannot refute centuries of astute human observation. And you sound like you're not detecting the humor everyone is throwing at you. Are you taking us seriously, by any chance?
You are recording a single event occurance in the flip of a coin. In contrast, you are looking for millions of potentially dependent or conditionally independent occurances when you do a study about something as complex as human DNA changes. 270 people out of billions is not a representative sample size, unless the study is very simplistic. In fact it probably is, and I've RTFA.
Oh yeah? First off, you have a wife, which implies you have a human sexual partner, which is an issue of concern in and of itself. We're not going to talk about this, but I just want you to know we regard you with extreme suspicion as a result of that statement.
Second, you cannot offer contradicting examples "in lieu" of evidence, you arrogant vagina. Your attempt at grammatical decor is so disgusting, so contorted, you could substitute that sentence in for a whole week of pr0n videos at any old BDSM site and the clientele wouldn't mind. Then you have the nerve (I won't say balls, because you have apparently lost them a long ass time ago) to use the word "lynchpin"... in the *very next sentence*. I am appalled.
My computer and I solve problems rationally. My thesis supervisor and I solve problems rationally. But a wife? Logic? Are you even listening to yourself here? Next you'll be telling us your wife doesn't ask you what you're doing in the bathroom or try to irritate you when you're watching football on TV, or argue incessantly about silly little things in a high pitched voice just to get your attention. If she has boobies, then she will do all these things no matter what sequence of characters you pronounce before her name, and no matter how big her contribution to the PhD-thesis-factory that academic institutions have turned into this century. Enlightened, yeah. You poor man. And there's this certain time of the month, a very special time of the month... hell, why am I even trying. You're a lost case.
You know what, I will stop right here rather than give you a run down of factual evidence that irrational behavior is part of the exam females have to pass to ensure healthy breast development, because you are so painfully brainwashed that any attempt to re-educate you on the subject will have negative consequences on your relationship with your "wife". If you don't have the balls (sorry, never mind) to stand upright and ruffle the hair on your chest and holler out at the stupidity of what the woman is doing, then nothing good can come of this. You may stop solving things logically together. Imagine that. Or maybe you'll break down in tears and tell her to forgive you for leaving the toilet seat up. I won't have that happen to *any* man, even a clueless schmuck like you. It's just wrong.
I run into strange people on the internets... unconceivable, twisted minds. Yet in spite of all your pussyfooting around and your fear of the ad infinitum, you are the best candidate for the male savior of feminism I have seen thus far. Well done, you have my vote.
No it isn't. I have lived with somebody who has top security clearance and works as defense contractor for the DoD, and their laptop (on which most of their work, some of which is classified, is done) is connected to the internet from a static IP address at home every day.
Oh, and I have full access to it.
That's how we "reckon" the nature of the universe. It is not the nature of the universe. That nature is indeed absolutely true, whatever it is. The sad thing is that it will probably not be provable once we identify it, given that mathematical logic is itself inherently inconsistent.