Abahbob actually did say there that he's coming back eventually. So that, combined with the length of his post, suggests that he will come back a lot sooner than MUGG, if MUGG ever does come back.
I can't believe we lost two great TASers because of the new site changes though.
I left the site back when it was "hip" or "cool" to leave the site. And I was so good what no one considered me a "great TASer". Wait, I'm still here?
Anyway, great progress with the run and all that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
"psychotic manchildren" hahah these guys are nuts
EDIT: About that other link, holy crap. I was mildly aware of what this guy Todd Akin said, but I didn't know people actually backed him up to this extent.
"Who could argue with that kind of rock solid, Godly logic?"
WHAAAAT
EDIT #2: "Look at how GODLY his hands are! Why, I bet he never once has self-molested and sent millions of his unborn baby souls to a fiery death. "
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
feos wrote:
Don't forget NitroGenesis uses Guga to clean his Moth.
Post #316304
This is pretty off topic, but this reminded me: once, someone in IRC referred to NitroGenesis as "him" and someone corrected them and said "her" and since then I've always pictured Nitro as a girl. I see that I'm probably wrong in thinking that...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
jlun2 wrote:
ElectroSpecter wrote:
This thread needs more fanTAStic puns
Are you sure you've loaded the right savestate? I think you've went abit too far back.
Heh, probably one of those situations where I read his post, subsequently forgot about it, but subconsciously remembered it as I was writing it, thinking I just made it up.
Rejecting since the joke does not beat the current published record.
Actually many AIDS denialist use it as a convenient excuse. After all, you don't die from AIDS itself (ie. from your weakened immune system). Instead, you die of whatever disease (or diseases) that you catch and your immune system is too weak to fight normally. Thus the denialists have a good excuse: "He didn't die of AIDS, he died of pneumonia."
(Well, duh. Why exactly do they think that AIDS is so dangerous? Because even diseases which normally are mostly harmless, such as pneumonia, which has less than 1% mortality rate among people with normal immune systems, can kill you because your immune system is devastated by AIDS.)
The fact that HIV-positive AIDS-denialists tend to die prematurely from diseases that do not normally kill people, while HIV-negative AIDS-denialists don't, doesn't seem to faze them.
Exactly why logic can be a dangerous tool... Misleading facts that aren't explicitly false seem to the be the weapon of choice in these situations. I feel that we should all have to take Critical Thinking courses in school. It seems to be the norm now to have this course as a requirement in a general college degree (at least around where I'm from), but frankly that's a bit too late in life to be schooled in this type of knowledge.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
bombman wrote:
chemtrails
A dishwasher at a restaurant I used to work at would go outside each day and take pictures of "chemtrails". I asked him what he was doing once... I learned my lesson, fast.
Twelvepack wrote:
fluoridated drinking water
All drinking water where I live has fluoride. Am I missing something?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
Well, since these don't have to be funny, how about a horrible pun?
What do you call Satan when he uses save states and luck manipulation to achieve his goals of bringing the population of Australia to Hell?
The TASmanian Devil.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
Mitjitsu wrote:
The eggs and ice key in Banjo Kazooie.
Oh god, these haunted me forever back in the day. Are you referencing the rampant theories for obtaining them and their subsequent use? They actually are obtainable (which you probably know).
More generally, I've noticed that a lot of arguments for a conspiracy theory tend to sport major fallacies or lack common sense. People still are drawn in by them.
The two examples I posted are great at illustrating my point, the one about the moon especially. The most amazing thing about that as well is that elsewhere on that site, the author uses math as an argument ("Newton's Formula") but completely disregards it when explaining his "experiment".
One of my favorites was one I watched during a documentary about 9/11. There was a team of conspiracy theorists and a team of "experts" (whatever that meant), and they basically went (indirectly) back and forth. One of the conspiracy theorists suggested that the Pentagon ought to have had a plane shaped hole through its walls, rather than the "missle-shaped" one that everyone saw. The expert's response was something along the lines of "REALITY IS NOT A CARTOON. PLANES DO NOT PUNCH PLANE SHAPED HOLES THROUGH WALLS."
The tide myth is one of the oldest and most absurd lies that the Lunar establishment has tried to push on a gullible world. Do they really expect us to believe that the moon - an object that allegedly resides at an average distance of 240,000 miles from the earth - has the power, from that distance, to lift how many billions of cubic meters of water?
Do an experiment: take a rubber ball and suspend it above a bathtub full of water. Now slowly move the ball closer to the water. Does the level of the water change? Not even slightly. So much for the tides myth.
Shouldn’t the body be able to heal a cavity just like it heals a broken bone or a cut on your arm? Why would teeth be any different from a broken wrist after all?
I've always been curious as to what the motivation behind these utterly insane claims are. For these two in particular, it looks like they're both trying to sell something; preying on the fact that people get easily excitable about these concepts will help their sales.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
Warp wrote:
I think that what you are asking is if the set of numbers is countable.
The question is: Which numbers?
Obviously all integers can be represented: Just write them eg. in base-10. Likewise all rational numbers can be represented: Write them as two integers in base-10. This is because these sets are countable.
All real numbers cannot be all represented because it's an uncountable set. (This is relatively easy to prove, even.)
Well, in my example and my thought process I was thinking about the naturals. I could extend the thought to the rationals to include incredibly small numbers which would amount to the same discussion... as you mention, the reals are not countable since they are dense (and like you mentioned, an easy proof).
But my question was more about pitting human ingenuity in mathematics and naming conventions against the fact that numbers can get infinitely large. Who would win? Like I mentioned (and as Scepheo and andymac mentioned) I feel as though we can get as clever as we want with the most advanced computers, but there are always numbers that are just not able to be represented in any meaningful way due to their magnitude.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
Is it possible to somehow reference any number one wants (no matter how large), or is there a certain point past which naming or referencing conventions fail and it's simply impossible to sufficiently define a number other than the fact that it's "very large"?
I'm thinking it's impossible, since I'm basically asking if one could "overcome" the concept of infinity, and there are numbers so large that even the most efficient data storage would have to use more than the combined resources of the entire universe to handle the idea of these numbers.
As far as naming conventions go, we can name numbers extremely high easily. For example, a googol is a one followed by a hundred zeroes. Piggybacking off this, a googolplex is a one followed by a googol zeroes. Continuing this way, it's easy to see how fast this grows.
Similarly, I can define numbers like (a googolplex)^(a googolplex)^(a googolplex)^... and grow even faster, but even methods like this eventually require too much thought or data (although you're counting ridiculously high in an incredibly short amount of time).
Thoughts on this? It might be a simple topic, but I find it kind of interesting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
I've heard more and more stories of this happening, so I changed my Live password a couple of months ago. I had one randomly generated: max length, and a mixture of lowercase and capital letters, numbers, and symbols. It's ugly looking, but I just wrote it down on a piece of paper and threw it in my desk drawer. I almost never have to actually input the password, so it's not a big deal.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(244)
Joined: 8/6/2006
Posts: 784
Location: Connecticut, USA
These questions might be elementary and ridiculous in many ways, but I figured this was an okay place for them to go:
1) If I had a knife and somehow sharpened it to an atomic edge, would I be able to actually see the edge of the knife or would it become transparent?
2) If I somehow got to this point where I had atomically sharpened a knife, would the edge instantly break from the slightest bit of movement or air resistance?
3) If the knife was unbreakable and I dropped it blade down (and there was no handle, to make my question less complicated), would it just keep cutting through the earth until it melted?
Living the Harvest Moon lyfe