gameguy6700's forum posts

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
Muslims don't have to try very hard to make me hate their culture and religion. I cannot even begin to summarize the rage I feel in light of this and it's violation of the basic right to free speech it infringes upon.Zeviander
This isn't exclusive to Islam, it's just that currently most (if not all, I don't know) of the world's theocracies are Muslim. I'm sure that if fundamentalist Christians, for example, had their way the US would also have very similar laws to what you see in Islamic theocracies. This is just what happens when you let fundamentalists of any religion get full control of the government in a country.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

I'll put it to you strait, THEY ARE CRAP. The internet is off and on slow at some times. I'd stay away if I were you.

Link592
I've had this problem with them as well. They told me it was a problem with my house's wiring and not a signal problem on their end, but considering my neighbors had the exact same problem (and would have their internet go down at the exact time mine did and I'm talking about outages on a near daily basis) I knew that was bs. I've been much happier ever since I moved to a new area and got Cox. Unfortunately I doubt OP has much of a choice considering ISPs typically hold monopolies in a particular area.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]Can this somehow be advanced in order to make instant transportation of Humans possible?FMAB_GTO
[QUOTE="sepulchrave from UM"]Briefly, quantum teleportation refers to the process of: Destroying an object at position A, In the process, encoding all the information about that object on to some carrier wave, Sending the carrier wave to position B, Destroying the carrier wave but in the process constructing a new object identical to the original one. So they don't really teleport a photon, they simply teleport the information and ``write'' that information on a new photon. As and then mentions, since a photon is a quanta of light this does not seem that remarkable. The key thing (as mentioned in some of the comments in linked story) is information security; this sort of thing is one approach to quantum encryption. But ultimately it is just a bit of a parlour trick; to quantum teleport something you need the original object to exist in a coherent quantum state and to be able to entangle that state with a carrier wave. For photons, single electrons, etc. this is doable. For a buckyball (C60) this is probably possible at extremely low temperatures. For a single virus or microbe, it could well be impossible. For an actual macroscopic object it is almost certainly impossible, unless the object is practically at 0 K in a complete vacuum in flat space.

I don't understand any of this btw >.>

They didn't achieve actual teleportation. What they did was tantamount to taking an object, blowing it up, and then sending a letter to a place 97km away telling them how to make an identical copy of the thing that was blown up, and then upon building an identical replica of that thing they declared they had created teleportation. The rest of what you copied is saying that the process could be applied to something as large as moderately-sized molecules, but nothing bigger.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

I mean, we still need people who are poweful behind the pen. No way can we disregard that. Sure, engineering may earn you more money... but do any of you even like engineering?

Shmiity
I hate this line English majors always spout. It implies that no one in science likes their jobs and that anyone who isn't an English major can't write for shlt. In reality, plenty of science majors can write well, and in fact it's necessary if you want to have success with grants and publications. And of course we enjoy our fields. Why would we subject ourselves to 4-12 years of hellishly difficult material and ramen noodles when we could just go major in business and make six to seven figures that way? Sorry to break it to the English majors, but you have one of the most worthless majors in academia. No one cares that you're good at critiquing Shakespear or can write creatively. Everyone in this country speaks English, and everyone can write English. Furthermore, writing WELL in English is pretty much a requirement for any profession, so you have no advantage there either. Even assuming you do write better than anyone else, it doesn't matter if you don't have the skills and knowledge for that profession. Maybe you could make the argument that you're more competitive as a business/english double major or a nuclear engineering/english double major, but as just a plain old english major you have nothing important to bring to the table.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
English and journalism were never worth it OP.
Law school anyone? Screw math, useless crap. Become a lawyer and earn the real money.jointed
Law is so glutted these days that unless you graduate from a top 20 law school you have a minimal chance of making good money as a lawyer. If you look at the statistics for income for lawyers you'll find it's a bimodal distribution, with a large peak at $40,000 per year and another, smaller peak, above $100,000 per year. Also, most other fields are in the same boat, including math and science. The only way to make a good living with science is to either go into certain fields of engineering or become a physician (which is tantamount to shltting out a diamond these days). This is the problem you get when you triple a country's population in half a century and eliminate all the middle class jobs that didn't require extensive education.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

Leave it to a religious nutjob to miss the point of his own religion and misquote the holy book in an effort to deprive the poor of food.

Andrew_Xavier
It's funny, but most Christians don't follow any of the teachings of Jesus because as it turns out Jesus espoused a pretty high moral standard that is really inconvenient for most people. They'd much rather pretend that Jesus wanted them to be greedy as hell and wage wars.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] No one is saying that. Rather people are saying "I DID do that". The only thing that people didn't do was have well connected parents who could con retarded art "aficionados" into paying tons of money for drawings a baby made while crapping in her pants. Also, "I could do that" is a valid criticism of modern abstract art. When a piece obviously took no talent whatsoever to create it really is a completely reasonable reaction to ask why anyone should give it any attention at all when there are no shortage of thoughtful pieces out there that also took a large amount of talent and skill to create.

Wrong. Even if you DID make "art" that was just as deserving as the art in question, did you enter it into competitions? Did you submit it for exhibit in a gallery? No? Then you didn't "do that". Even if this girl's work is no better than the fingerpainting you did in kindergarten, you didn't get it submitted for anything, you didn't find anyone to buy it, and most likely your paintings ended up in a box never to be seen again. Granted, this girl didn't do THAT, her parents did. Her parents are obviously submitting the stuff for her and doing the legwork. But to say that they're "conning" anyone? You need to back that up with some facts. Show some actual proof that they are submitting the girl's work as anything other than what it is. It's very likely that the article in question is either misleading or doesn't contain all the facts. But according to the article, the most deceptive thing that the parents did was to simply not divulge the daughter's age. THAT'S not a con. LYING about the daughter's age would be a con. Lying about her credentials would be a con, and submitting the work under an established artist's name would be a con. The article gives absolutely no indication that any such deception occured. If such deception DID occur, then it's on you to establish that fact before labelling the parents as con artists. And no, "I could do that" doesn't mean ****. Here's the thing...art collectors aren't in the business of paying massive amounts of money for what people could have done. They pay money for what people did. Galleries display existing art, not art that could have been made. I'd also like to point out something else: I am absolutely not under any circumstances saying that this girl's art is good. Firstly, I have a very sketchy grasp of what's "good" in the first place, so far be it for me to comment on **** that I don't understand. Moreover, even if these girl's paintings are some kind of powerful and raw expressions of emotion or feeling or something, intent matters. Feeling is important, but so is thinking. And I find it very hard to believe that a five year old girl has studied and experienced enough to actual have the INTENT necessary to elevate her works to the level of greatness. Maybe in 15 or 20 years, after she's grown and matured and studied and learned and experienced things that can't possibly be appreciated by someone that young. That being said, you were NOT doing this when you were five years old. For five years old, this work IS freaking impressive as hell. Did you ever think that maybe the reason people are willing to pay money for this stuff is because she's showing a lot of potential for her age? And her college education is probably going to be paid for by her own work. Assuming that she decides to keep pursuing arts, she could potentially be a big name 20 or 30 years down the road. And if her NAME ever becomes valuable in itself (why is a basketball signed by Michael Jordan worth so much, when I can sign my name on a basketball too), then some people will have cashed in on that early by recognizing someone who's got a LOT of potential. But never mind all of that. Here's my real problem. And that problem is that I detect a big stink of jealousy. Oh, I know that the people here appreciate art. I've seen the drawings of Master Chief and the paintings of dragons, and the photos of flowers. And hell...let's throw myself into the mix: the photos of maggot-infested bird corpses, and flies dancing on a pile of guts. And it's real easy to say "I could do better" or "I did do better". And hell...those comments might even be true. That's still a load of bull****. QUALITY does not guarantee loads of money. Van Gogh sure as hell wasn't rolling in dough during his lifetime. Take a look at the top ten highest grossing movies of all time, and dare to tell me that they are even remotely close to the BEST movies ever. I think we can agree on THAT, at least. Right? If so, then here's what annoys the **** out of me. Whenever these kinds of topics come up, I always detect a bit of pure jealousy. An element of "I could do better, so why isn't it ME who's getting that kind of money"? And the answer is very simple. Regardless of how GOOD this or that or the other thing may be, it doesn't get sold unless someone wants to buy it. You can say all you want that one's meticulous drawings of Master Chief are better than this five year old girl's abstract paintings, and you might even be right. But here's the thing...most people who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on art don't want freaking dragons or Master Chief hanging on the walls of their homes or galleries. And apparently, several people who are partial to this girl's style of art ARE willing to pay thousands of dollars for it. Bottom line...regardless of quality, this girl's work is worth something to several people. Now, regardless of quality, how much is your or my art worth to anyone? Apparently, not as much. And in most cases, it's worth nothing. Bottom line is that some people like summer blockbusters and some people prefer weird indie films. I don't even need to opine whether one is better than the other. In many cases, they're suited for different audiences. Similarly, it's pretty ****ing petty to get jealous of a 5 year old girl for successfully selling the kind of art that you don't make in the first place.

I'm not jealous and I don't think anyone here is. We're not saying "I could do that so where's my $100,000?" we're saying "Dude, a braindead squirrel could do that. Why would anyone think this is art, much less actually pay money for it?" Get off your high horse. This garbage isn't worth defending, and it is exactly that: garbage. It has no meaning, no message, no emotion, it took zero talent to create, and it wasn't even made intentionally (as in the child did not think about what she was doing, she just threw paint on it like any other child her age would do). It's not art, it's just paper with paint on it. And no, the fact that it has been sold gives it no value. It just shows that there are people gullible enough to spend a lot of money on a painting that they assume was created by a famous (or soon-to-be famous) "deep" artist when in reality it was just something a baby made accidentally. The funny part is that you probably still think I'm only saying all of this out of jealousy. You are the exact kind of person I was railing against in my first post, the guy who desperately searches for some excuse to give value to a piece in an attempt to feel superior to all the plebs who "just don't get it", and who ignores all legitimate criticism as "jealousy".
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
ITT: "I could have done that" - Yes, but you didn't. If you're gonna' complain about her, or the aesthetical or commercial value found in abstract pieces of art in general, you could by the same token complain about absolutely anyone, in every aspect of life, who did something that you didn't, as long as it is theoretically possible for yourself to reproduce their results. That's a pretty g*y attitude, in case you were wondering.BiancaDK
No one is saying that. Rather people are saying "I DID do that". The only thing that people didn't do was have well connected parents who could con retarded art "aficionados" into paying tons of money for drawings a baby made while crapping in her pants. Also, "I could do that" is a valid criticism of modern abstract art. When a piece obviously took no talent whatsoever to create it really is a completely reasonable reaction to ask why anyone should give it any attention at all when there are no shortage of thoughtful pieces out there that also took a large amount of talent and skill to create.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
This is yet another example of why I don't take the art community seriously. It's gotten to the point that people are so desperate to make themselves feel like intellectuals that they'll search for some kind of profound, deep meaning where this isn't any meaning at all. Sometimes they'll realize this and claim they like a piece for it's "emotion" which seems to be the most common way to rationalize the fact that "paintings" where some guy just randomly threw paint at a canvas for ten minutes sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Essentially modern art is nothing but rich pseudointellectual hipsters more than willing to drop an absurd amount of cash on something because "I get it but you probably don't, right?" What the art community seems to have forgotten is that just because anything creative can be labeled art doesn't mean it's good art. Good art requires both creativity and talent. Just because I can put a small statue of Jesus in a bottle of urine doesn't mean I'm the most creative, radical mind of our generation (true story by the way, google it). It just means I'm a talentless hack desperate for undeserved attention that you're more than willing to provide me with.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

83

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
Games with high resolution textures like Crysis will use more than 1GB of VRAM on occasion starting at 1080p. Once you get up to 1440p it gets a lot more common, and if you use a multi-monitor resolution virtually every game wants way more than 1GB of VRAM.