I did read the fine article, but I'm afraid I just don't get what's going on here. Are the players contributing something in some kind of crowd-sourced "Yes, that blob is a star, and its center is here" kind of way? Or are they using players' computers as a distributed processing system?

It's nifty either way, but I don't the New Yorker's audience has the same kinds of questions about the technology that I do. Can anybody in this audience (more like me) help me out?

Props?

Agreed.

I was responding to this post:

by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @04:26PM (#47411267)

And your current phone product portfolio is to be found where? - BB have had a reasonable success in the business compared to the Karmashockphone

Which you defended indifferent to whether you made the post yourself. You personally challenged me to cite the logical fallacy.

I then did so... and now instead of admit I was correct you're attempting to cloud the issue.

It is a fallacy and you current line of reasoning is also a fallacy in that you're attempting to discredit the whole discussion itself... which is a bit like flipping the checkers board over and pissing on the scattered pieces just because someone beat you by the rules.

Its a fallacy. I cited it as such and it is... end of story.

Yeah. But they are really good at spectacular failure, and undermining long-term success prospects through want for cooperation... :-)

Yeah.

And just LOOK at how THAT turned out!

Nope. Ongoing, current bacteriological process.

"Ever" - rhetorical device. Not a statement of actual infinite temporal determination. :-)

Grim emphasis on the "final".

Oil a'int fossil in origin. The Russians know that, and have capitalized magnificently on technologies that exploit this. This is actually the REAL story behind the Donetsk basin.

False scarcity is a wealth creator and a method of social control. UAE will be destroyed not by petrochemical scarcity, but by its comparative plenitude.

No one will EVER live in a permanent space colony. Sorry.

This fantasy was promoted in an age where achieving terrestrial dominance through orbital trajectory of warheads was under intense and competitive development. It did its job.

Rockwell rode on the tail-end of this era, for the final boondoggle of the US Shuttle Program, in the 1970's. You won't see anything like that again.

There is still an instrument for guiding one's evaluation of claims and conundrums: Cui Bono?

In matters of human affairs, it is generally less erring than application of Occam's razor.

"Someone" is interested in getting you to think that the biggest potential for catastrophe, in your daily life and for your way of living, is impending Muslim ideological violence. They wish you to believe an absurdity.

What group or party benefits from this? Why have they chosen this from other possible alternatives? What other possible real threats and risks are diverted from attention by this condition?

Those are the basic questions for the truly inquisitive, not those merely questioning from a habit of personality.

Someone is well-informed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh-vlQwrmU