Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Ask Me

Real Name Ask Me   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Scheherazade
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage None given.
Signed On Feb 28, 2001, 23:01
Total Comments 391 (Amateur)
User ID 9185
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Older >


News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
7. Re: Morning Tech Bits Jan 7, 2019, 11:03 Scheherazade
 
Pepe wrote on Jan 7, 2019, 10:38:
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 7, 2019, 10:02:
I think Nvidia is shooting themselves in the foot this generation with their pricing schemes. I get that they need to recoup the cost of R&D on ray-tracing but with how little it is used now and how little it will probably be used this generation, it seems like price gouging for the sake of price gouging.

While I'm sure Nvidia has some room in their margins memory prices are also up, also adds to the total cost of the cards think I read somewhere GDDR6 is 22$ more expensive then GGDR5.

Irrc I paid 50Ä more for my RTX2080 then I did for my GTX1080 but that would have been 200Ä if I went with an Asus strix, some manufacturers are doind some serious overpricinf if you ask me.


Problem with the 2080 is that it's the same speed as the 1080ti.
RTX is nice, but you won't use it in multiplayer because it shit tanks your fps.

If you have a 1080 or 1080ti, the RTX cards aren't worth buying unless it's the 2080ti.



The important thing when buying GPUs is to consider not "FPS-per-dollar", buy rather "FPS-improvement-per-dollar".

I already have 1080 sli (same speed as a single 2080ti)



Single 2080ti = no gains, no sense in buying

2080 sli = same as going to 1080ti sli. If it was worth it, I would have done it earlier.

2080ti sli = finally a big enough gain to be worth spending money on, but at $3k ... that's double what the worst case at-launch cost would have been from the last few GPU gens.



I'm usually an at-launch buyer. But this time, I think I'm skipping.
(The more time goes by, the less likely I am to buy anyways, as the lifespan of the card is going away (next gen comes closer)).

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
5. Re: Morning Tech Bits Jan 7, 2019, 10:36 Scheherazade
 
Prez wrote on Jan 7, 2019, 10:02:
My first add-in gfx card was a 3DFX Voodoo but I can't remember what it cost, only that for the time it wasn't at all cheap. Maybe it's because I'm older now but I don't view any gfx card under $450-$500 to be high end these days.

In the last few generations, $500 was the top end about half the time, with $700 being the top end the other half of the time.

Now it's:
$1300 top end (2080ti) (That's on the cheap side. More like $1500 if you want something in stock)
$750 upper-mid level (2080)
$550 for mid level (2070)
$350 for lower-mid (2060)

(and eventually the 2050 will be the rock bottom (for I'm guessing $250?))


Ironically, unlike earlier generations, the 2080ti isn't even a complete chip - it has sections disabled. So it's actually more related to the 1080 (not the 1080ti, which was a complete chip without sections disabled).

Today you need to spot for the RTX titan to get a complete chip, which will run you $2500.

-scheherazade


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
9. Re: Op Ed Dec 13, 2018, 11:57 Scheherazade
 
Timmeh wrote on Dec 12, 2018, 10:31:
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

You take that back Beamer Alex the Jones is THE MAN!!!

seriously though.... Where can anyone get actual factual non politically propaganda spun information any more? I dont think it exists.


Does anyone really understand and have weighed the actual real pros and cons of Net Neutrality as its called? Or are we all just playing the drum beat of the political teams info we are being fed.

The crux of net neutrality is 'deep packet inspection'.




Historically/currently, you are sold bandwidth, or megabytes.

Historically, the ISPs have grown via adding new customers that hadn't previously had a connection, or by offering more bandwidth and competing over existing customers.

Today, the problem for ISPs is that ~everyone that matters has a connection, so new customers aren't a useful source of growth.
Bandwidth has hit a useful plateau - multiple people can be watching 1080p (and even 4k) streams. There is no need to pay for more bandwidth, so ISPs can't upsell you on more bandwidth.

So : How do ISPs continue growing? (Investors want "MOAR")

The solution : Deep packet inspection + pricing content.




Companies want the right to inspect what you are putting into your IP packets, and charge you differently depending on the content (rather than charging you only based on how many bytes you send).

So they can detect compressed video, and charge you a different rate for that (video delivery surcharge).
Or they can detect financial transactions, and charge you a different rate for that (financial transaction surcharge).
etc.

Kind of like the mail service reading your stamped and paid for letters, and asking for more money if the letter looks like something you really care about.

ISPs invested a lot of money into the equipment to inspect your data, and now they want to monetize it.
(I actually know a guy IRL that designs the equipment).




Most of the political rhetoric (i.e. language used) is the fallout of people trying to simplify what's going on into terms regular people would care about. "Privileged access", "Fast lanes", etc, it doesn't really tell you what the physical meaning of net neutrality is.

Net neutrality = No pricing discrimination based on the content of packets, bandwidth is bandwidth.
No net neutrality = Packet content can be discriminated and monetized, even if the bandwidth is already paid for.




To clarify, a key aspect is that ISP service contracts include a clause stating that (paraphrased, each has something similar) : They are not required to give you your stated bandwidth, because they can not foresee technical difficulties of network congestion and can not be liable for under delivering.

That 'out' is used for reasons OTHER than technical difficulties or congestion. Because, as stated, the rule is "They are not required to give you your stated bandwidth", and the rest of the sentence is FYI.

Hence they can inspect packets, decide if they want to throttle you under your bandwidth, and hit you up for more cash to get your speed back.





(If my memory is right:)
A related squabble was the Netflix v Comcast/Verizon. Where ISPs claimed slow video streams from Netflix to ISP customers were caused by network congestion, and ISPs claimed they need money from Netflix to upgrade networks just for Netflix.
What ISPs didn't count on was encrypted VPNs, which hide the content of packets from the ISPs.
Over VPN, ISP customers could watch Netflix streams at speed, but if not using a VPN the streams would be slow.
The VPN actually had MORE hops to make, and should have been slower - but it was faster. Indicating that the ISPs were selectively throttling video streams based on packet inspection.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Dec 13, 2018, 12:17.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
8. Re: Op Ed Dec 13, 2018, 11:45 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:34:
LibertyOrDeath wrote on Dec 11, 2018, 23:18:
Let me educate...Politicians will name their bills, "Fluffy Bunny People WIN" but realize that the fluffy bunnies people might get maimed within the bill. In other words, read the fine print.

No offense, dude, but a guy who gets his information primarily from Alex Jones, QAnon, and /r/conspiracy isn't really in position to educate anyone on anything.

Do you ever see a group of silver cars and believe they're following you?

He's right though.

Eg. Remember the bill they were coining the "Patient's bill of rights" from a few years back? That was primarily a document putting limits on how much you can sue for in medical malpractice.

In any case, only a small section of any given bill has anything to do with the title.
Bills are vast collections of unrelated-to-the-title material promoted by lobbyists to senate staff, selectively globbed (via a give&take process of negotiation with senate staff, and on rare occasion the senators themselves).

Fore example, here is the ACA printed out : https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130719154054-boehner-obama-health-care-story-top.jpg
Most of that stack is unrelated to Obamacare, it's just in the same bill.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Tech Bits
5. Re: I watched more DOOM videos (not all of them [TL;DW]), with a guy's commentaries, from YouTube... Nov 21, 2018, 22:30 Scheherazade
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 21, 2018, 22:19:
Jesus Christ, I wish we would just fucking legalize weed federally and be done with it. It's insane that this is still any kind of issue at all.

The type of people who decide whether or not weed is legal at the federal level, are the same sort of people that are at the head of NASA. Career bureaucrats, reliably conservative, and moralizing.

The given statement containing the phrase "If I see something thatís inappropriate" is telling, in so far as the action begets a subjective judgment on part of institutional leaders, and then the institution is obligated to manifest the leadership's grimace.

It's worth mentioning : Legality and Morality are not the same thing.

It's also a logical fallacy to transpose events in one domain onto another. Attitudes towards narcotics, and towards product safety, are mutually independent. Willful mingling of domains is prejudicial.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
9. Re: etc., etc. Nov 20, 2018, 01:54 Scheherazade
 
Agent.X7 wrote on Nov 19, 2018, 20:53:
NKD wrote on Nov 19, 2018, 20:44:
Fallout 76 is hot garbage so I understand people wanting a refund, but jeez.

How so? I am loving it so far. It's cool to bash it right now, but give reasons instead of jumping on the buzz train.

I would love an fo game with 2 or 3 player story coop.

A pvp cluster with screeching 12 year olds, teabaggers, and random griefers, breaking my immersion while I hope to do shit with friends, is not my idea of fun. But I can accept that for someone else it is fun.

The game is fine. Just not for me. I will change my mind if/when there are private servers.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 76 Launches Early
22. Re: Fallout 76 Launches Early Nov 16, 2018, 10:33 Scheherazade
 
Flatline wrote on Nov 14, 2018, 17:02:
Prez wrote on Nov 14, 2018, 09:30:
I fall into the weird dichotomy of simultaneously being one of the "Fuck Bethesda" crowd and a Bethesda fanboy. I love how they make games like Skyrim and Fallout 4. But fuck them for not fixing ANY of the long-running, extremely well-known bugs (many game-breaking) for years but having no problem re-releasing the game multiple times for extra profit. But then again, hardly anyone is making games like that anymore so I still love them.

That's changing with Fallout 76. A series of terrible design decisions with very few upsides - I only feel disappointment. Damn Bethesda - sometimes I hate myself for loving you.

Funny, I found Fallout 4 to be the game that killed Fallout for me. I have zero interest in the series at this point, and until they do something impressive with 5 I suspect I'm done with it.

For me it was FO3.

To me, FA is isometric top down, with combat using SPECIAL driven turn based combat.
FO3 was ~none of that.

Sure, you could use VATS, but it felt like an after thought. Why have a game where you can have a XX% chance for a head shot, when you can just put your cursor on the head and shoot? Just felt stupid.

I just wish they would make an actual fallout game, not an FPS with a fallout skin.


I'm actually hoping they make an original-style FA game for cell phones (because that's the most likely place for a turn based version in modern times).

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > BioWare on More Mass Effect
12. Re: Rise of the EA bullies Nov 8, 2018, 09:46 Scheherazade
 
WitcherOntheProwl wrote on Nov 7, 2018, 20:35:
I really like the Mass Effect series. Now Andromeda had it's problems, though I did like the story. I did not like that EA dropped support for the game, because of harsh complaints that were over a known racist working on the game. Other than that the game was fun. Looking forward to another game in the series. This time I hope support isn't dropped because of complaints. The reason EA really dropped support for Andromeda was as a warning. Complain and we won't support the game anymore. Or so that's my take on it. Like a parent to a child that cries at the mall. Stop crying or we go home right now.

I had to google this 'EA drops support for mass effect because racist' thing because I never heard of it.
Nothing came up. Only thing I found was some Manveer Heir dude shit posting on social media, but nothing out of the ordinary.

I hope support wasn't dropped too early, else that would be screwing a lot of customers.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > World of Warcraft Classic Demo Play Time Limitations
23. Re: World of Warcraft Classic Demo Play Time Limitations Nov 2, 2018, 17:30 Scheherazade
 
Kxmode wrote on Nov 2, 2018, 16:48:
While watching the Diablo panel about their announced product Diablo Immortal, an audience member asked if the game would release on PC. The audience response to "This is only available on IOS and Android" was audible boos. Next question from another audience member was if the game's higher difficulty tiers will be available. The devs replies "This will be a true Diablo experience." That's where he's wrong. A Diablo experience released for mobile devices only isn't a true Diablo experience. The vast majority of Blizzard's customers are PC. Whoever decided to put their next flagship Diablo product on mobile devices is an idiot. I'm repeating the question of who is this game for in my mind. Mobile gamers are general casual. They don't sit down and play serious mobile games for hours (maybe they do I don't know). They play Candy Crush and similar titles in-between destinations. If Blizzard hopes to attract their PC customers, apparently they have not heard the motto "PC Master Race." At the very least, some of us are willing to play games on a PS4 or an Xbox One (have a PS4 PRO and highly recommend it if you have a 4K display). A mobile game? NOPE!

Anyhow, burning time waiting for the Classic WOW demo to arrive!

I just looked up the cinematic trailer. 1.5k likes. 45k dislikes.
I did a double take IRL.
New territory for Blizzard.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > World of Warcraft Classic Demo Play Time Limitations
3. Re: World of Warcraft Classic Demo Play Time Limitations Nov 2, 2018, 10:08 Scheherazade
 
Slick wrote on Nov 2, 2018, 09:55:
Wake me when they re-release the real Warcraft classic, Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

I played wow o&h last year on dos box, and my takeaway was that as a kid I had way more patience for failure&retries.

Compared to anything recent, that game is brutally hard. I had to play it at a slow game speed, else it was impossible to keep up even on the early maps.

The the 4 unit select limit, clunky map panning, peons unable to fight and giving up on work if they take damage, low map resources, having to respond to swarms of enemies using just micro because of select limit.
All I thought when I played it was : how in the hell did I play this years ago??? I didn't remember it being this difficult.




And there I was realizing that it wasn't just old RPGs that were brutal. "Oh, you didn't pick up seemingly inconsequential random item X early on in the game and you need it now to continue, and there is no way to go back and get it? Oh well, better luck next play through."


I must be spoiled with modern 'streamlined' experiences. Or just old.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Tech Bits
7. Re: Evening Tech Bits Oct 30, 2018, 19:38 Scheherazade
 
Avus wrote on Oct 30, 2018, 19:06:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 30, 2018, 09:57:
And this is why you don't buy gen1 cards

I thought this is only apply to cars... Even cars made by Toyota/Honda...

I suppose it applies to just about every designed/assembled product you can buy.

There is also the monday|friday thing.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Safety Dance
5. Re: Evening Safety Dance Oct 30, 2018, 10:03 Scheherazade
 

Solution : NoScript installed on every web browsing box

If a script isn't 100% required to use the site, it stays off. Goodbye random infections.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Metaverse
6. Re: I watched more DOOM videos (not all of them [TL;DW]), with a guy's commentaries, from YouTube... Oct 28, 2018, 01:50 Scheherazade
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 28, 2018, 01:23:
Scheherazade wrote on Oct 27, 2018, 19:15:
Cutter wrote on Oct 27, 2018, 14:30:
Yeah, I'm sure your investors see it exactly the same way. They so need to get rid of Musk.


Seems weird, with the 1st amendment and all, that it can be a crime to tell people your [perfectly legal] plans.

-scheherazade

Lots of speech can be illegal under certain circumstances. When you commit fraud, it's often done via speech. Same with incitement. Same with forms of assault. Same with perjury. The 1st amendment has never been an absolute right to say whatever you want regardless of the circumstances.

Fraud/etc are illegal in and of themselves. The speech is incidental.

Legal business plans are ... legal. It's just illegal to let people know the plans.


The government's claim in this case are in themselves spin. Elon had an agreement with Saudis for Saudis to buy into Tesla, which the Saudis and others verified. But because the Saudis had not yet made a move to commit the purchase at the time of the tweet, the govt asserts that the agreement didn't count (which then makes the tweet a lie). (and after US govt heat came on, the Saudis backed off anyways, coming to 'self fulfilling prophecy' territory).

Basically, short sellers with govt connections had a shit fit because they bet on a stock value crash, and it didn't happen.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Metaverse
4. Re: Saturday Metaverse Oct 27, 2018, 19:15 Scheherazade
 
Cutter wrote on Oct 27, 2018, 14:30:
Yeah, I'm sure your investors see it exactly the same way. They so need to get rid of Musk.


Seems weird, with the 1st amendment and all, that it can be a crime to tell people your [perfectly legal] plans.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Mobilization
3. Re: Morning Mobilization Oct 26, 2018, 13:28 Scheherazade
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 26, 2018, 12:48:
This 5G stuff is going to really blow up at some point. The infrastructure required to make it work is going to annoy more and more municipalities as they run up against barriers to having any control over their installation.

I read some summary of the tech and I'm actually kind of 'meh' about the tech.

So, it has a low and high frequency mode.

In the low mode, 5G is in the same frequency area as LTE, and has speeds ~matching LTE-A (sp?).

In high mode, it has enough frequency to have trouble penetrating leaves and walls.
Inside it will likely require a transceiver in each room, and outside on every 10th or so light pole.



Big dense cities will enjoy 5G outside fairly soon.
Indoors, in shopping districts, probably also soon.

Otherwise, I think 5G will be rarely useful beyond 4G, for a good while. Just because it takes so much more infrastructure, in so many more places.


5G seems like a 1-network wrap-up of : 4G outside, wifi inside.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Into the Black
24. Re: Into the Black Oct 26, 2018, 12:32 Scheherazade
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 13:13:
Scheherazade wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 10:30:
Trump never called nazis fine people.

His quote was : "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides"


Which is an accurate statement.

Incorrect. If you're standing on the side of neo-Nazis, Nazis, racists, and other fuckwits, you are not "fine". You are not even fucking close to "fine". You* are an irredeemable shithead who should die in a fucking fire for the betterment of humanity.

There is no middle ground here. There is no nuanced position. The minute you do not vociferously denounce a group of people so repugnant that they acutely work to undermine the civil, legal, and inalienable rights of all people, you become just as much a raging cunt as they are.



Your position is a logical fallacy.

Just sharing a position on a topic, with a [pseudo/neo-]nazi, does not make one a [pseudo/neo-]nazi. ("pseudo/neo" for pedantic accuracy, as none of this involves literal national socialist party members)

Nazis stood on the side of social welfare programs.
If you are at a pro-welfare rally, and a nazi shows up yelling 'save welfare', does that make everyone at the rally into nazi-siding fuckwits?

This is the kind of logic that makes people not infected with outrage-culture listening to Democratic media get a bad vibe.

Charlottesville had plenty of pro-monument normies, anti-monument normies, police and militia, none of which were there to fight, and none of which gave a shit about supremacists or antiFa.


Sidenote :
I would never demand that anyone support or denounce anything - because they are not me, and to do so would be implying that I have authority/ownership over them. That is the kind of mentality that is the source of human made suffering in this world. Nobody is my property, and I am nobody's property.
Humanity would be much better off if the people who 'die in a fire' are all the people who act out to oblige/compel others to do/not-do anything without consent of involved domain holders.




Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 13:13:

Scheherazade wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 10:30:
Myself, for example, I disagree with sanitizing history.

So do I. I vehemently disagree with sanitizing history. However, not celebrating actually terrible people is not the same thing as sanitizing them out of history. Do not conflate the two. Was Robert E. Lee a pretty good general who did his best with the meager forces the Confederacy had at their disposal? Yes. However, that does not eliminate his morally repugnant support of the Confederacy. My family fought on both sides of the most morally divisive wars in modern history: the American Civil War and World War II. Those who fought for the Confederacy and the Nazis were not lauded, are not lauded, and will never be lauded. They were inherently wrong. End of fucking story. They haven't been been removed from family history nor will they ever be but there is not a single living member of either side of my family that finds them to be people to hoist up on a metaphorical column as being paragons of the family's values.


Out of sight, out of mind.


I have no problem with 'taking your ball and going home'. If you don't wanna play, you don't have to, and no one should force you to.

I disagree with slavery. I agree with independence (Be it individual, or southern states, or any other. On principle. Especially in a 'Democracy').
Nobody should be compelled, and the two views are not mutually exclusive.

If southerners fought for their independence, and they wish to commemorate it, I take no issue with that aspect (which, to them, historically at the time, was the primary aspect).


Sidenote :
My family (who raised me as a kid) survived the blitzkrieg and holocaust - not as tourist soldiers, but actual people who had to live the entire thing and stay to rebuild on their own dime and effort - They look at recent events as 'meh', while kids who never saw a nazi in their life go frothing at the mouth.




Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 13:13:

Scheherazade wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 10:30:
Same thing with the 'grab em by the pussy' quote.

The recorded conversation was :

Trump : "I just start kissing them. Itís like a magnet. Just kiss. I donít even wait. And when youíre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush : "Whatever you want."
Trump : "Grab íem by the pussy. You can do anything."


I bolded the relevant portion of that quote. That is sexual assault, period. There is zero fucking ambiguity there. Being mealy mouthed and whining about "he wasn't fairly quoted" is fucking horseshit. The motherfucker openly and freely admitted he commits sexual assault whenever he fucking feels like it.

It's sexual assault, dude. How the fuck can you be any less clear on what that maggot said?!


I agree - assuming you ignore the second part of the sentence which indicates that it's consensual.

If only the left wing media made the same point, rather than focusing on hypothetical pussy grabbing.







Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 25, 2018, 13:13:

As for the rest of your opinions, I simply don't care. You're on the wrong side of history and by failing to take a clear and unambiguous stance on one of the worst presidents this country has ever had (Cause, you know, Cleveland), you're also on the wrong side of morality.

Edit note: *"You" is a general "you" and not a specifically addressed "you".

Understood (vis-a-vis 'you')

I sincerely doubt a "live-and-let-live, don't aggro on others, keep emotions in check, be as empirical as possible, don't lie/mislead" philosophy is going to go down bad in history.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Oct 26, 2018, 12:56.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Into the Black
17. Re: Into the Black Oct 25, 2018, 10:30 Scheherazade
 
"Trump calling repugnant Nazis 'fine people' and inciting violence."

This kind of straw manning is what makes tilted republicans do stupid shit.


Trump never called nazis fine people.

His quote was : "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides"


Which is an accurate statement.

Both sides had normal people present, and both sides had evil fucks present.

Myself, for example, I disagree with sanitizing history. I don't like modern-standards people taking down civil war monuments any more than I like modern-middle-eastern-standards Muslims taking down Buddhist monuments. In the future, after sane people return and the outrage culture is over, people will just regret it.
I think that's a perfectly fine position to have, and I know other people who have similar thoughts about it (Racism isn't even in the picture, nor are any of them nazis. But if you believe the media, everyone who is against eliminating southern civil war monuments must be an alt-right racial supremacist, either out right or hiding it behind false pretenses. F U media.)

When you see photos of two rows of [opposed] protestors, BOTH wearing home made body armor and melee weapons, you gotta realize that they came there with armor/weapons. They both came to throw down, and they both didn't give a shit what happens to regular people caught up in the mess. They're both assholes. (Thankfully the police and militias both had the sense to abstain, else the casualty count would have likely been an order of magnitude higher.)






Same thing with the 'grab em by the pussy' quote.

The recorded conversation was :

Trump : "I just start kissing them. Itís like a magnet. Just kiss. I donít even wait. And when youíre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush : "Whatever you want."
Trump : "Grab íem by the pussy. You can do anything."

It's a conversation about being so famous that women make themselves easy.
'Pussy grabbing' is listed as 'one of the /anything/ things you can do'.
He doesn't even state whether or not he has ever done it (I assume he has at some point, but that's not the quote).

That's hardly a shocking concept.
I watched an interview with Schwarzenegger where he said that at his peak of fame, completely strange women that he just met for the first moment ever on an elevator, would let him fuck them right then and there on the elevator. And that that shit happened constantly.

Bieber was asked in an interview why he has so little self control.
His reply was (paraphrasing from memory) : When you're 12 and girls and grown ass women are throwing themselves at you, it goes to your head, and you don't grow up right.

I can't judge the candid conversations of rich and famous men, by my nobody standards. People in society don't react to me the same as they do to them. The norms are different.





The thing is, the people misquoting Trump know they are misquoting him, and they don't care.
Republican media isn't misquoting trump, but they are pointing out when Democrat media misquotes trump. When Republicans see the misquotes, they know Democratic media is straw manning, and they get tilted about it.
The misquoting is effectively manufacturing anger on both sides. Ironically, the misquotes are actually creating support FOR trump on the Republican side, but the typical viewer of Democrat media wouldn't even know it.





I'm glad to have had this president.
Not because I give a crap about his presidency.
But because it gave me the chance to see Democrats act like the same band of lying assholes that the Republicans have been for years prior.
My belief that both sides are equally shit has been confirmed, and for that, I am glad to have had Trump.






The problem with voting, is that we don't have the option of 'no confidence'.
If we did, I would be first in line to say "None of the above."

The only decent/moral person I saw run for president was Ron Paul. Because he's a believer in the non aggression principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle ). A basic, decent, live and let live individual.
Everyone else is trying to shovel their shit down everyone else's throat, whether they like it or not.
Republicans don't respect Democrats. Democrats don't respect Republicans. They all just want to dominate the other. Assholes all around. Each too caught up in the promise of social engineering the country to match their personal views, they can't accept that others want different things for their own lives, and one person's 'perfect world' is another person's 'suffering'. Selfishness all around.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Oct 25, 2018, 10:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
8. Re: etc. Oct 24, 2018, 09:29 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 18:33:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 16:58:
deqer wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 10:33:
Well duh, He's 16. His mechanical skill is better.
You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.
But there are some 50yo's here that think they could compete at this level if they only practiced because they won a round of counter strike last weekend playing against some randos on the intarweb. smh

And that's Eli Manning's issue - he just isn't practicing enough to compete. It's not that he's older and slower and less willing to take a hit, age has nothing to do with it, he's just not practicing enough!

I used to be in a CPL practice group, and I could beat JonnyH (Jonathan Hill) consistently 1 in 3 rounds (I played against him ~every other night). He won quake con.

I will always remember being 'pretty damn good'. But it's still just a memory.

Now when I play games I catch myself thinking : Don't get excited, it'll make you tired, and you still have things to do today.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
37. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 22:53 Scheherazade
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 12:09:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 23, 2018, 12:02:
Nor will we ever.
Ever? Don't know about that. We really aren't too far from being able to send people there. Yes, there are problems to solve, but none of them are thought to have solutions which are centuries away. But then again, I'll concede our chances of self destruction might get in the way...

Mars gravity is a big deal. It isn't "insignificant" like the moon.

You need to take off in a large rocket, and take another entire large rocket with you to get back off of mars.

Atmospheric density is small, so parachutes can't help you with descent.

Wings are of little use.
Temperature is cold, so speed of sound is low.
Low density needs high speed to generate lift.
No supersonic-landing-length runways for you to land on.

So you need to land a large rocket using retro thrust, and have enough fuel left to get back up into space.

You can't just bring more fuel either, because fuel is the bulk of the launch weight.
2x fuel needs 2x thrust needs 2x fuel consumption.
You would need fuel with way greater impulse (good luck with that) ... or multiple resupply trips so assemble the return flight resources.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Oct 23, 2018, 23:07.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
29. Re: Out of the Blue Oct 23, 2018, 09:36 Scheherazade
 
Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 15:00:
Prez wrote on Oct 22, 2018, 13:01:
As an aside to the nuclear test story, I remember as a kid hearing how much shit Reagan took for his 'Star Wars' missile defense program. Years later I came to learn that this test proved it was not only possible, but very doable. By then the political climate had shifted too much to make it a politically viable venture. Who knows, completing it may have actually heightened cold war tensions, so maybe it was for the best that it wasn't ever completed.

Star Wars would have been substantially more scary if it had been super viable. MAD only works when it is ASSURED. If the US had a missile shield that could shoot down enough of the USSR missiles that the destruction was no longer mutually assured, then what was there to stop the US from wiping the Soviet Union off the face of the map?

For that matter, if it had been that much of a certainty, the USSR would have most likely launched a strike before it ever went online.

It always makes me wonder, when they announce that there was another anti-missile test and it went wrong or it only worked "to an extent" whether that's the actual real result, or whether they're just sandbagging and giving the rest of the world misinformation, and in reality the system works great?

They keep saying it's like trying to hit a bullet with another bulletóas long as the intercepting bullet has guidance, why would a computer not be able to hit it?

I think the fact that both sides have thousands of missiles, and even a 99% intercept rate would mean annihilation for both sides, means that it's pretty well assured. IMO.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
391 Comments. 20 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo