5161

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How do you think humanity will end?

« on: March 16, 2015, 11:29:05 PM »

These numbers look like a "What COULD kill us all" rather than a "what WILL kill us all".

Killing humanity is hard.  We've gotten to the point where we could survive in isolated, self-sustaining areas underground, even if the surface was an icy rock.  It wouldn't be fun or easy, but humanity would likely survive.

A nanotech weapon is so sci-fi that we have no clue how to deal with it.  And like the atom bomb, we'd likely make the weapon before we figured out how to stop it.  And since our fleshy bodies are likely not able deal with a nanotech, it could wipe us out before we can deal with it.  Remember, washing your hands won't stop the nanites.

5162

Arts & Entertainment / Re: RIP Terry Pratchett (1948-2015)

« on: March 14, 2015, 03:11:14 AM »

I'm gonna have to read all 41 disk world books.

I've got 1 down, 40 to go.

5163

Technology & Information / cloud computing Barbie

« on: March 13, 2015, 10:33:13 AM »

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hello-barbie-goodbye-privacy-why-some-are-calling-new-doll-creepy/ar-AA9EYaC

So Barbie has gone into the Same realm as Samsung TV and micrsoft's Xbox one.
By sending voice data over the internet to a cloud server, they can do heavy voice processing without having to put in expensive hardware in the consumer devices.  Too bad it all get's recorded for analysis by the company who would want that information the most.

5164

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 11, 2015, 10:23:01 AM »

Fortunately, Iran thought it was just propaganda and is ignoring it.

But perhaps the 47 republicans have a point.  Our allies may not understand that we can undo any alliances we want at any time.

We should send this letter to every friendly nation.  Especially Israel.

5165

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 08, 2015, 06:23:23 PM »

Because everyone knows he's a failure.

There's a few things he has done right and a few things he has done horrifically wrong, just like... well, every other president ever.

I was making a pun.

5166

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 08, 2015, 03:44:14 PM »

The president isn't in the line of succession, because he's already the president.  He's hardly going to succeed himself if he dies or is removed from office.

How do you know he doesn't succeed himself every day? You don't.

Because everyone knows he's a failure.

5167

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: March 07, 2015, 09:32:07 PM »

Or lab grown pig meat?

5168

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: March 07, 2015, 09:49:42 AM »

If you took some cud from a cow, and fed it to a pig, and the pig chewed it, does that mean that you could eat it?

Leviticus says no because the pig's feet still aren't acceptable. Something about ugly toes.

What if the pig was genetically modified to have no legs?

5169

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 07, 2015, 09:49:02 AM »

I don't know if he can.  But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question.  Someone may be able to answer it.  Or maybe no one can.  Either way, I think it's a question we should ask.  Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?

It is a dumb question. It's asking him to, at worst, predict the future, and at best, be fully aware of the department's subjective impact on its own roles without ever having worked in that department. If the person asking was really interested in the DHS' impact, they probably should have referred to a specific role it plays and how that function has or hasn't changed since its inception. Asking a vague question like "ARE WE SAFER?!" makes no sense. It's the difference between asking if Border Patrol makes the country more or less safe... or asking if the Border Patrol statistically lowers the amount of illegal immigrants. One is a vague, open ended question that is just conjecture, the other is a real topic.

It is a vague question, no doubt.  But that's their jobs: to take all the various question and impacts and condense it into a Yes or no vote.  "Are we safer" is just a short form of "Does the Department of Homeland Security do the tasks they are assigned better than the various departments acting as they did before." It's a question he should be able to answer, especially as someone who needs to vote on justifying how much (if any) money should be spent on it.

And since be should have access to all the various attacks and plots that the DHS has foiled over the years, he should be able to answer the question with some accuracy.

5170

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 06, 2015, 11:37:47 PM »

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

Why was the question dumb?  It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.

Do you think he can answer that question? I don't.

I don't know if he can.  But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question.  Someone may be able to answer it.  Or maybe no one can.  Either way, I think it's a question we should ask.  Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?

5171

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 06, 2015, 08:45:46 AM »

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

Why was the question dumb?  It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.

5172

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 06, 2015, 01:45:22 AM »

Would you prefer that he make up some sort of bullshit response or dodge the question entirely like pretty much any other politician presented with such an asinine question?

That's exactly what he did, isn't it?

He did, but not in the traditional political way. The traditional political way is to draw out a five minute response about topics tangentially related to the question.

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

5173

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does John Boehner's arrogance know no limits?

« on: March 05, 2015, 11:05:55 PM »

That's not arrogance that's "I don't want to go on record answering this question because either way it'll fuck me up badly."

5174

Technology & Information / Re: VR Headsets

« on: March 03, 2015, 09:03:59 AM »

Add Microsoft to the pile.
www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us

I personally don't like VR headsets.  The thought of being deaf and blind to the outside world is scary.  Just think how much easier it would be to sneak up on someone who can't see or hear anything around them.

5175

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The saga of Cliven Bundy

« on: February 24, 2015, 10:08:13 AM »

Cliven Bundy has been out of major headlines for quite some time now.  I wonder if all his protection has left already or if the media just doesn't care?

And what happened with the grazing fees?

5176

Technology & Information / Re: PC Build

« on: February 19, 2015, 10:21:25 AM »

>AMD graphics
>AMD CPU

I hope your smoke detectors work.

<--- has AMD CPU, south bridge, and GPU.  Working great since 2009.

5177

Technology & Information / Re: Getting into making an OS

« on: February 19, 2015, 01:56:38 AM »

No, I mean just being able to talk to the computer and tell it what you want it to achieve. And it actually getting it no matter how dumb you are with computers. That would be more intuitive than any operating system in existence ... obviously.

"computer, I want to write an app for my mobile phone. Make it show news feeds from the huffington post and let people share them. Make the pictures a bit bigger. Make the font an bit more easy to read. Nice font but make it bigger. too much. Perfect. and then make an icon that is a dolphin hoping through a hoop and load it onto my phone. Add some adverts and put it into the store for me. Ok, now show me some naked ladies but turn the volume to mute. No, lesbian nonsense. yuck, white girls only please. make it hd. Don't take any calls or make any notifications until this film is over. Oh and make sure my webcam is off this time. "

"Computer, I want to write a letter to my grandson."
-would you like to type and print a letter, e-mail, or use another messaging program?
"What?"

Intuitive fails with terminology.  As the example above shows, what you say can mean multiple things.  Yes a letter traditionally means snail mail, but it could be an email if you aren't familiar with that term.

The computer must know what you mean before it can do what you want.  And that takes either direct brain reading or training.

5178

Technology & Information / Re: Getting into making an OS

« on: February 18, 2015, 06:40:05 PM »

Could you even make an intuitive UI?  Everyone is different in what they think should happen to do something.  So aside from tapping into their brains, I don't see any way to make any UI completely intuitive. 

5179

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: February 16, 2015, 05:32:26 PM »

God could have, at least, told you about diseases.  You know, really importaint survival stuff like how to not get small pox. (Hint, vaccination)


Having to adjust the religion to fit the times and new information puts a severe question of why God would require you to?
The invisibke shrimp could have been fixed by simply saying "that which can not fill your belly when eaten without limit can be ignored, even if it is alive."

I believe I just fixed God's poor legal skills.

5180

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.

« on: February 15, 2015, 02:32:19 PM »

As for the universe itself being eternal, that disagrees with current science saying that the Big Bang occurrec 13.8 billion years ago. But if it were eternal , that would imply that it was G-d in some sense, which, although I disagree, still makes the atheist look like a schmuck.

Yes because the big bang is only possible once and can never be a repeating event.  Such things just don't happen....