Quote from: Tsirist on December 07, 2015, 10:00:37 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on December 07, 2015, 09:59:50 PM

Quote from: Tsirist on December 07, 2015, 09:42:44 PM

anyone else think egg is pretty cute?

literally no one die

uh the evidence suggests literally otherwise

das doesnt count and he admits it

and what about literallywho?

Quote from: Tsirist on December 07, 2015, 09:42:44 PM

anyone else think egg is pretty cute?

Whoa whoa whoa
Fuck off he's mine

as long as you're fine with seconds

Quote from: Tsirist on December 07, 2015, 12:42:18 PM

Quote from: I slam Islam on December 07, 2015, 05:59:15 AM

Been reading about this and no, definitely not. The cons (pretty much giving up one of your constitutional rights) far outweigh the benefits.

It should go without saying that purposely putting vulnerabilities in encryption schemes is idiotic. It defies their very purpose, and it will in no way hamper the ability of hostile elements to communicate without our knowing considering the huge number of workarounds they have access to. It puts the public at greater risk as a side-effect. Whether or not it's a constitutional right is not even relevant in my opinion.

Well the problem with your little rant here is that they wouldn't be putting in "vulnerabilities", they'd be putting in a back door for authorities and intelligence agencies.

There are good uses for this, and it sounds like a good idea on paper. But the reality of all this is much more complicated.

Back doors are by definition vulnerabilities. If it can be programmatically utilized by a good party then it can be used the same way by others.

Source: undergraduate researcher in cybersecurity for two years before I got bored of it.

Been reading about this and no, definitely not. The cons (pretty much giving up one of your constitutional rights) far outweigh the benefits.

It should go without saying that purposely putting vulnerabilities in encryption schemes is idiotic. It defies their very purpose, and it will in no way hamper the ability of hostile elements to communicate without our knowing considering the huge number of workarounds they have access to. It puts the public at greater risk as a side-effect. Whether or not it's a constitutional right is not even relevant in my opinion.

water is so pure
so simple
so theoretically appealing

idk how anyone could drink soda more regularly than water, or really not drink a super lot of water daily as a result

Assuming your argument is sound, what greater use or meaning would this offer than noting that free will is an illusion does not?

however i also believed jaz and luciana were the same, like winy

fired rifles, handguns, shotguns at targets. never to kill anything. i have a shotgun (unloaded) with shells in my closet.

i would give it up if everyone else were ready for a ban. i do not have a super-strong opinion on the issue as i've seen convincing arguments from both sides, but i lean towards favoring bans.

current primary objective: hold out to see egg

One of my housemates has added a word to the list after using it at the start of virtually every response he says, particularly when his response isn't a contrast to whatever his point is.

"To be fair..."

As opposed to what? Were you thinking of something unfair?!

i've felt the same way about starting a phrase with "honestly" since someone pointed out to me that it seemed like the implication of that usage was that you are not always honest

I'm wrapping up a graduate course on it this semester!

They're not an end-all solution and they actually perform worse in some use cases then classical computers do, but the algorithms used are almost magical they're so unlike those used in classical computing.

When it comes to qubits, a single qubit does NOT store one of four potential states. It only technically represents two states, the usual 0 and 1 (using Dirac/bra-ket notation, |0> and |1>), but the ability to put a qubit in a superposition is where the whole "both" thing comes from, which I personally find misleading. Basically, many quantum algorithms designed around gate computers start off with a Hadamard transformation which sets a qubit or set of qubits in an equal weighted superposition between |0> and |1>. At that point, if you measure any of them there's a 50/50 chance of getting either result. After they are superimposed, you can perform a function you are interested in/other operations on them and it effectively is equivalent to performing that operation on all the possible values that those qubits can occupy at once. Well, until you measure them. But that massive parallelization is where the power lies.

Most of the notable algorithms don't go straight for an answer in a usual computational sense. Usually they exploit relationships between the outcomes. It's pretty weird, half the time the answer you're looking for is produced in the input register rather than the output register.

It's so complicated though, I couldn't adequately express it in layman's terms if I tried. And that's in spite of the fact that the math is really pretty simple; you really only need basic calculus and linear algebra for the early quantum algorithms (i.e. up to the 1990s and 2000s). Check out Deutsch's, Simon's, Shor's, and Grover's problems/algorithms if you want real examples.

Killing him might have been too far

haha now I'm interested in knowing when it is finally wrong to kill someone to you, because otherwise I think these words say enough

Nah I still feel what you're saying. Just thought your response was kind of a strange one there.

My feelings are still mixed on the extent of the wrongness/pain that can be caused in risking the shattering of the perception of someone that you mention.

Quote from: Tsirist on December 01, 2015, 10:11:30 AM

To require disclosure before anything is initiated seems unreasonable to me as I figure that there are a number of people who, upon being committed to getting intimate, will no longer care if they are transgendered or not where they might have avoided the situation entirely to begin with.

there are also a number of people, like me, who are always going to care

i can love men, women, transmen, and transwomen all the same
i can be intimate with them all the same

but i'm only willing to be sexual with one of those four things, and that's ciswomen
therefore, i'm someone who would appreciate a bit of honesty and disclosure

call me a bigot

I don't blame you and I don't think you qualify for bigot. ;P

Personally, I don't know if I'd go so far as oral sex before disclosing if I were in that situation. I just don't know what it's like, other than from what I've heard. But the fact that I wouldn't do it still has no bearing on whether or not it's right or wrong.

For me the contentious part is whether or not it was OK to let the guy touch her genitals without knowing what to expect. I'm comparing it to flashing and how that would be received between different gender situations but I was under the impression that rape had to involve penetration by lawful definition. Would this maybe be sexual assault?