It does seem pointless to me to use a computer to create a proof,

I believe the poster you're responding to meant something different.

Say you have some complicated ("chaotic", maybe) formula which determines the behavior of a system. Say just to make it easy the system is a single particle moving under various influences. Now say you know where it is now (it's a big particle like a planet or something, so ignore Heisenberg and such) and you want to know where it will be 500 seconds later. Many systems currently require iterating through all 500 steps or other time intensive tasks in order to find that answer due to only having approximate methods with which to solve the system. An analytic solution as the OP was using it would be more like a function where you plug in 500 and get your answer. If you plugged in 500 Billion, you'd find that answer in more or less the same amount of time as for 500.

So computers can potentially make taking the wetware time to find an analytic solution to an equation (system of differential equations, optimization problem etc.) less valuable in some of the meanings of the word, if in practical applications you can get say 10 decimal places closer to the answer than you need in microseconds.

Computers proving theorems is a different thing. The Four Color Problem is the most common example of that I'm aware of. I think it's cool that people managed to do that, but it's unsatisfying in that it doesn't really add much in the way of understanding. Some theorems people have come up with are similarly unsatisfying.
Existence theorems which demonstrate that a certain thing must exist in some given circumstances yet provide no clue whatsoever as to how to actually find it would fit. Also, brute force methods in general (which is what the four color proof is, only done via computer to save time) tend to leave mathematicians satisfied that the given fact is true yet still looking for a more elegant solution that provides greater understanding.
Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is fundamentally different in that it did (eventually) provide a huge degree of insight showing unsuspected ties between disparate branches of mathematics. Technically, Wiles didn't prove Fermat's Last Theorem, he proved the Taniyama Shimura conjecture (demonstrating a deep relationship between elliptic curves and modular forms) which someone else had proven would imply FLT if true.

It's the porn talking to the video games. I'm just eavesdropping.

What about midget or dwarf? I know that one of those descriptive terms is offensive, but I don't know which.

Actually, the preferred term is now "Imp".

Republicans are for a smaller government than the Democrats. That doesn't mean that they're for a small government in the slightest - just at least a tiny bit smaller than the one preferred by their opponents.

That statement is directly contradicted by reality on every level and has been for several *decades*.
Reagan broke the record for growth of the federal government set by FDR. Bush II *shattered* that record.

Please pull your head out of your ass and quit repeating something so ridiculous that it hasn't been even remotely sane in over 30 years.
Seriously, Republicans speaking about small government are pathetic and laughable given that they are far and away the biggest big government party.

The funny thing for me is I've always been a Randroid, since long before I even heard of her or saw any of the movies. I'd really like to know where that in me came from (and it certainly wasn't handed down by my parents or family).

Well, Rand's "philosophy" is basically just a justification for sociopathy, so it wouldn't be surprising if you arrived at it independently...assuming you have no empathy and one hell of an unjustified ego. No idea if that's true of you, but i can't really think of any other circumstances under which one could come up with such a simplistic, blatantly incorrect worldview.

It's not like it's a particularly insightful or deep "philosophy".
One way of looking at it is take Liberalism, reset it as a religion instead of a philosophy and insert a big chunk of sociopathy and a brief skimming of, "The Wealth of Nations" ignoring Smith's cautions about too little regulation of the market.

Another way of looking at her "philosophy" is take Marx's "Communist Manifesto", drop the ending where he predicts Capitalism collapsing on itself when too much wealth gets filtered upward as we're seeing today. Rand ignores that very real very obvious issue and pretends that it will magically all work out. Obviously, this isn't happening and won't happen.

That's why nobody with any sense takes Rand seriously as anything but a sociopathic hack writer.

Wow. While that doesn't use vehicular references to make the analogy, the point hits home.

That is hilarious :-)

Powerful Statist governments killed >100 million people in the last century. I see this as a more immediate and real threat to us, our children, our grandchildren and theirs, so I fight anything that moves in that direction (left).

Uggh, the ignorance.

WW2 was the great war of Liberalism and the Left ( The Allies ) against the Right ( The Axis ). Yes, the Soviets et al went to the far extreme left, and were also statist, but this recent redefinition of right *by the right* to mean small government, individual liberty (which is known as *Liberalism* and is what you're left or right *of* ) is truly disgusting. The political right is entirely incompatible with Liberalism and therefore with the US Constitution by its very definition. That's why after their side lost in WW2, the American bankers and industrialists decided to redefine the term. It worked on a great many weak, stupid lazy people.

So, I'm sure you do fight anything that would help pull the country to the left, that is toward the center and away from the lunatic fringe upon which we're currently teetering, but that's not a good thing in any way shape or form. It merely demonstrates conclusively that you have no idea what the words you're using mean or much of anything about history or the principles upon which America was founded...Well, or that you're actually proud of being a Fascist.
I hope you don't live here, for you should be deeply ashamed of yourself given our grandparents sacrificed so much to fight the terror of the Right in WW2. If you do live here, why not consider moving to a right wing country, like Iran or Saudi Arabia? It seems you'd be much better served living in a place that is built upon your cherished ideals rather than tearing down a place built on the idea that your ideals are shit, doesn't it?

Apart from Feudalism/Aristocracy, Fascism/Nazism and Theocracy, can you even name an actual right wing form of government that's ever been implemented?!? Have you ever even heard of a right wing government which decent people would describe in a positive light?!?

No, the media isn't centrist, it is commercial. Their primary interest is to make money, and that trumps all other interests. Making money translates into advertising dollars, and that means making their sponsors happy and getting viewers/readers.

Which is far fringe right wing by definition.

First, McVeigh and Breivik were not "Christian fundamentalists",

Yes, they were. They were both quite explicitly Christian.

Even if they had, it would obviously be against the teachings of Christ.

Wrong again! The mythical Jesus preached crap all over the spectrum *including* every letter of every word of all the sick racist violence in The Old Testament. Plus, Christians were the most vile force of violence torture, murder and oppression ever seen for well over a thousand years. Whether or not you agree with the biblical justifications given for such actions is irrelevant. Christians did all that for a long time in the name of their gods and still do today. The only reason it doesn't happen as much these days is because Western society is based on the Secular, Liberal ideals of the Enlightenment. Islam is still hundreds of years behind, although the US is quickly regressing with the takeover by lunatic fringe religious extremists.

Also, you don't see Christians rioting and killing people in mass every time a Bible is burned or someone makes a cartoon of Jesus

Any more.

In other words, your moral equivalency argument is bullshit.

No, it's rock solid. You're looking at a Secular, Liberal society, calling it a Christian society even though the vast majority of the commands of that religion are outlawed in every decent society on Earth including the US (for now). You then compare that to Theocratic societies and act as if you're making a comparison between the religions.
Christianity is every bit as bad as Islam by its teachings, it's just largely confined to Western Liberal Secular countries whose laws almost totally neuter the religion making it more of a social club than anything anybody truly believes in. Just look at all the freaking bacon Christians eat. There would be none if they took their faith seriously instead of picking and choosing bits to go spread their hatred of gays and such.

So, yes, Religious societies are hideously violent, brutal and disgusting compared to Secular Liberal societies. That should be blatantly obvious to you given that you haven't chosen to leave Secular Liberal America and move to Saudi Arabia or some other religious shithole. But choosing between Islam and Christianity solely on their merits leaves little to decide upon. Heck, at least Mohammed was almost certainly an actual person whereas Jesus almost certainly was not...especially given the fact that early Christians didn't believe anything of the sort and that was only added to the fairy tale later.

Well, vi, obviously. But shouldn't it be named EGACS by now?

Eighty Gigs And Constantly Swapping ;-)

One major problem with your ratings is that you have 8, the military as heroes while they are the major tool owned and used against everybody by villains 4 and 7.

There is no way you can build a consistent system of this nature and have the military as good guys. They are the weapons used by the bad guys and since it's a volunteer force, there is no way to justify membership in the military unless you are a hard core villain.

NEVER? Be careful using that word. The fact that you are alive depends entirely upon the fact that it has happened in nature. Your cells generate the energy that keeps you alive due to the presence of mitochondria which are there due to the integration of bacteria into the genome of humans and (many?, most?, all?) animal species on the planet.

Seriously, life is a heck of a lot more wild than you think. Dawkins' "Ancestor's Tale" is a great read for the layman ( like myself) to get a decent grasp of how far out things really are.

That doesn't quite fit. Walmart itself is the predator on both Walmart shoppers and their ecosystems. There is some sort of coevolution between them, but it's definitely a predatory relationship of some sort. I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to recognize any analogous systems in nature though. Perhaps you do?