Messages

1

Quake / Re: Splatterfest 2010!

« on: February 07, 2010, 10:57:12 AM »

I'm watching the 5th's ustream video of the jailbreak game...

...

I'm literally bouncing up and down with a mix of joy for seeing those maps played again, and frustration at not being there myself.

I was shouting directions at the screen when Jehar was getting lost in the maps. I'm so psyched that you guys are wanting to play this again, I'll totally be there tonight, the suberbowl can suck my superballs. I'm going to try to stir up the oldschool Q2JBers as much as possible, though tonight I'm not sure how many you'll get.

Excited. Excited excited excited! Also inebriated, due to being snowed in... But still, excited!

Stinger{ASS} (Atomic Slug Slingers, a decade+ old Q2JB clan)

2

Tastycast - tastyspleen.tv / Re: Jailbreak Cup Tonight!

« on: February 07, 2010, 08:41:57 AM »

Woot! I'll try to make it, and I'll pass along the game plan to others.

3

Tastycast - tastyspleen.tv / Re: Jailbreak Cup Tonight!

« on: February 06, 2010, 02:39:04 PM »

I was unaware of said event!

I'm told you've been shown the BKP forum? I tried to get a Q2JB resurgence going last year and actually had some marginal success. If you give the oldschool JB community a day or two notice, I'd bet heavily we can fill a server between us and the good Tastyspleen peoples.

I met my business partner and several of my best friends playing Q2JB over a decade ago. Nostalgia... I'm all for playing it again.

4

/dev/random / Re: Amazing Facts.

« on: January 03, 2009, 01:40:36 PM »

Quadz, I share your enthusiasm for this being something that we may be able to achieve through some programmable means, but I think your first asterisk is actually the biggest real obstacle to against this occurring.

Making a program that handles a task with the scientific method sounds way doable, and that it how you always guarantee improvements to a technology while it's in motion, but the problem is in quality of the input these machines could provide without human intuition to guide it.

I'm in marketing. When I start a new project, there are a series of rules I have to follow. I take an educated and creative guess on the best possible ad to get someone to buy a product. Then I save that one, put it out to the market, and take another educated and creative guess to make a second one. Test one against the other real time, and one always proves itself better. So you delete the loser, and write a new one to try to beat the winner. As long as you never stop testing, you never stop improving. But the system can't do this itself. Wouldn't know how, and I don't think it could be taught.

There are steps to follow, instructions that could be programmed, but when it came to the step where it had to enter something genuinely creative it would have to rely on algorithms. Random numbers, or math problems that could maybe cheat their way through a basic approximation of human interaction. And they would all suck, and fail.

It takes no human intuition to replicate something exactly, that can be taught. DNA, like you said, is an awesome example of self-propagation, but like you said, it's just following instructions. But to create something completely, or to improve on something that is creative in nature (all technology is creative in nature), that requires the spark of higher consciousness. I think that comes from a place of human irrational thought and feeling. I'd be really stoked if we figured out a way to cheat around this, but I'm not optimistic about seeing it anytime soon, if its even possible.

5

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 02, 2009, 11:23:59 PM »

Blah, blah blah, blah blah. I'm done paying attention to you. Seriously, I hope you live a charmed life, Tito.

6

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 02, 2009, 06:11:50 PM »

Was I? Seriously? No, but if I was, I wouldn't be stupid enough to go wallpapering intimate details about my life like that all over the internet. As if I really needed that to pinpoint the fact that you're a fucking fruitcake, the whole "pants are evil" thing already tipped me off to you.

   Aw, you're so cute. See, I don't have any self-esteem issues. I like me, I'm very happy with me. I live a good life, I'm loved, I love others, and I don't keep secrets. I've published more intimate details than that a dozen times over. It's not a wound for me, it just so happens to provide me with a unique insight into the topic of our current conversation. So when some retard says something like;

And despite what YOU think, child molestation is a far more despicable act than murder. Murder victims themselves only suffer in the last few moments of their life. Molestation victims suffer for the rest of their lives.

  I'm uniquely qualified to tell you that you're a fucking idiot that doesn't have the slightest fucking clue what he's talking about. See, I was molested... And then I went on living my life. I dealt with it, and moved forward. Those are two things I couldn't have done had I instead been murdered.

  See fucko, had I been killed, I wouldn't have grown up to do the whole "pants are evil" shtick which you so charmingly incorrectly attributed to my past rape (man are you ever a catch). To say that murder is less heinous an act than molestation is not something that most people who have been molested would agree with. See, that's the cool thing about being a rape victim versus being a murder victim; I got to stick around long enough to tell idiots like you that you're not only an idiot, but you're also completely ignorant about the shit you spew en mass.

   This is a point I was going to make when you first chimed in with it, but I was trying to be the bigger man and gracefully bow out early of what I'm currently engaged in: A battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. So OK, sweetheart. You hate me. That's fine. I don't hate you, for what it's worth. You're not worth the mental energy. If anything, I kind of pity you. It takes a real damaged person to try to turn knowledge of someone's past molestation into fodder for insults. I hope your life gets happier, amigo.

7

/dev/random / Re: Amazing Facts.

« on: January 02, 2009, 12:52:23 PM »

So what is the purpose of creating artificial intelligence? To replace humans? If by 2020 we have a computer with the processing power of one of my 3 year olds, I still don't trust my three year old to fill her own cup with juice. And by 2030 we have a computer capable of becoming a telemarketer or a cab driver. Then I guess the trillion dollars per unit is going to replace the guy in india working for 6/hr.

Telemarketers are already being replaced en mass by technology. Telemarketers and "cold-calling" are on their way out in favor of highly-targeted lead generation systems being powered by systems like Google's Adwords.

I'm with you that anytime statistics are thrown out as "fact", it's time to start taking them with a grain of salt. But our history is filled with jobs being lost when technology got advanced enough to replace them. I'm positive it's only a matter of time before you can walk in to a McDonald's and have everything, from the ordering to the cooking to the serving, all be done by one machine. It's amazing how many jobs are out there that really can be done by computers only slightly smarter than we have now, and the cool thing about technology is that it gets cheaper as it gets older.

Basically, machines will take over for the guy in India cold-calling for $6 an hour after the technology has been around for 5-10 years. It never takes too long after a technology is invented for it to become affordable for small businesses. Take digital camera's for example.  About 9 years ago my dad bought a top of the line digital camera for $1500 so that he could do professional photography. For christmas last year I got a camera for $200 that shoots at 4 times the resolution, and does video at TV quality, and shoots to multiple formats.

Yeah, the technology won't go straight from "It has been invented" to "It replaces people." But, 6 dollars an hour, 8 hour days, 250 days a year? That's $12,000. And if you have a couple of guys like that, buying a big-ass expensive machine for 30,000 once seems like a real bargain. Especially if the company that makes it has good leasing options!

I make my living as a freelance consultant in a field that didn't exist 10 years ago. It really won't surprise me too much if in another 30 years, taxi-cabs drive themselves and my tech support calls are handled by 100% a virtual female voice.

8

Quake / Re: Adding More Monsters into Q2 Single Player

« on: January 02, 2009, 10:05:21 AM »

Thanks for the link to "Return to Hell." I hadn't ever come across that before, and I'm really enjoying the play.

9

/dev/random / Re: Amazing Facts.

« on: January 02, 2009, 09:56:49 AM »

Heh, one way of looking at it. Call me a geek, but I subscribe to the "Star Trek" theory of technological advancement.

Yeah, the computers will very quickly become smarter than us. Cool. They're still devoid of emotion, which is a big part of why people kill like we do. Now yes, at some point "virtual emotion" is plausible, but it'd just be an emulation of what it was taught.

I think humanity at its core has something that can't be mechanically reproduced. Our "soul" for the lack of a better word, I'm an atheist myself. But even when computers become far more advanced and capable of far more intelligence than our smartest "us", it'll still be a box that will never know lust, or fear, or hate. Maybe approximations of them, if some programmers get bored, but not the real things.

But yeah, Star Trek has the Borg, too. And I do think it's only a matter of time before people start mixing and matching technology with their bodies. What Quadz said; At least it won't be boring.

10

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 02, 2009, 09:33:53 AM »

I was molested as a child. Seriously. Were you?

I think he's innocent, so I'm not defending a child molester. I've been a molested child, so I don't need you to tell me how horrible it was. It certainly sent me down a path far different than the one I'd have gone down had some truly evil man not done some truly evil things to me when I was 6. We're not arguing the merits of penance for child molestation, I genuinely don't think the guy did it.

Weird for the sake of being weird? Stop being an ass for the sake of being an ass. Don't make assumptions. You're the one with his knickers in a bunch, here. I'm the one being civil.

Trust me, you'll know when I'm displaying my feathers. I'm far from subtle.

11

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 01, 2009, 10:29:57 PM »

No, they're 19 million dollars richer settling out of court. I don't remember what they asked for going into it.

You have a real hard-on for prosecuting the guy who made "Thriller," huh? And yeah, I concede. You're right about the OJ thing. Allegedly showing a kid your dick and then paying him 19 million dollars is very similar to killing your wife and her lover and getting away with it, then committing more crimes on tape. I don't know why I stubbornly refused to see how strikingly not-a-stretch that is. Silly me.

I could actually argue further, but it clearly won't make any difference. You have your opinion, I have mine. I think he's a psychological curiosity that's done more good than harm, and you seem to think that I'm an asshole for defending a man who, once again, has done more for charity in a day than you will in your life against statements akin to "He deserves to die of a rare lung disease." Clearly, we're not going to agree here.

My name's Josh, by the way. Nice to meet you. Besides my disagreeing with you on this front, I swear I'm really quite friendly.

12

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 01, 2009, 08:31:46 PM »

Dude, I'm not saying the guy is "right in the head." The list of "ways Michael Jackson is fucked in the head" is too long to list. I completely believe he has in his life mentally rationalized having discussions about sex with children. He also once had a monkey for the best friend, and was on film dangling his own child over a balcony. He also once gave 39 million dollars away in a single day to a single charity, regularly supports 39 in all, and is personally responsible for literally saving lives that would have been lost without his efforts.

Picking on Michael is too easy. He's emotionally a child. He never grew up. That's why he hangs with kids now. He's desperately trying to latch on to something he never had because his father was an abusive ass. He hangs out with a bunch of kids for a full half of his adult life, inevitably this will lead to legitimately creepy situations, Michael's child-mind says something creepy to top it all off, and the parent attack with 19 million dollar lawsuits.

Michael is odd. Like I said, I don't think he's a pedophile and I still wouldn't want the children in my family to go spend the night at his mansion. But there just isn't evidence that he's anything but incredibly weird. People who've accused him in the past have already admitted that Michael never touched them.

He's odd. Parents would be ill-advised to let their parents sleep in his bed. But "pedophile" is such a dirty and common word that doesn't apply to a man whose done more for his fellow human beings in single days than you and I could ever hope to do in our lifetime, and whose sole proven "guilt" was getting drunk on "Jesus juice" and having inappropriate conversations with some kids on the topic of dicks. Kids who'll never have to work again because of the cash payout they got for their awkward troubles.

He's odd. Troubled. Mentally "special". But to pass judgment on him as an evil man for something that could very well have been nothing but opportunistic attacks on a wealthy target of convenience by greedy parents is just short-sided. Don't let the man have sleep-overs with your children, I'm with you there. But yeah. OJ?

OJ killed his wife, got away with it in a trial that will be in history for generations to come, then robbed people at gun point on camera over sports memorabilia. If anyone ever finds Michael in a video-taped preteen gangbang, then we can start holding Mikey next to OJ, and I'll be the first person calling for MJ's head on a pike. In the meantime, your comparison is lacking.

13

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 01, 2009, 07:28:26 PM »

My mom said that one too.

   I am many things, friend, but naive ain't one of them. I've seen sick, I've seen depraved. I've seen more fucked up shit in my life than I'd wish on anyone. I once had to throw a guy through a table for sexually molesting my dog. Seriously. I'm not blind to the idea that there are a lot of sick fucks out there. I just don't think Mikey is that kind of sick.

14

/dev/random / Re: Michael Jackson very ill?

« on: January 01, 2009, 07:01:23 PM »

I dunno, I know I'm in the minority here, but I genuinely believe Micheal Jackson is innocent of the pedophile rap.

I think he's insane. Completely off his rocker. Sleeping with little children I will also concede is about 20 different kinds of creepy. But I think his motives are more sad and fucked up "The innocence of a little child is the most magical thing in the world!", and less "Oh god yes bring on them pre-pubescents to wax my loins!"

He's fucked up, and I wouldn't want him near my children, if I had any... But I don't think he'd try to fuck them. Maybe stroke their hair inappropriately and call them all "Tito", but not fuck them.

15

/dev/random / Re: Amazing Facts.

« on: January 01, 2009, 06:51:50 PM »

Eh, understandable to get a little nervous from time to time, but really, I didn't see the technology growth as a bad thing. Never have.

   Computers are just a tool. No matter how powerful the tool is, it's only something to be afraid of if it's being used by people who would use it to do harm. Now, when you take into account how many stupid people there are in the world who could misuse the computers? Then fear may be a rational thing. But as far as the "terminator" stuff is concerned, that's just downright improbable.

   Even if someone does create a robot for the purpose of killing (Which, if you think about it, does seem like a bit of an eventuality), it'd be a small scale thing. I don't think technology will ever become a big force in the "things that kill people" field. Humans do it way too well themselves to let the competition catch up.

Cool video, though.