Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Betteridge's law... (Score 1) 501

by guruevi (#48044057) Attached to: Will Windows 10 Finally Address OS Decay?

I've never seen either a Mac or a Linux box suffer from 'decay'. The box will work progressively slower compared to newer, faster systems which you may get used to eg. at your job but I've never seen the box slow down any measurable amount (unless of course, the hard drive is getting close to full etc). Windows on the other hand simply slows down due to updates and antivirus getting heavier and heavier, Windows machines will also fill their own hard drives (I manage some boxes that have been installed when XP first came out, even with minimal user data, the machine has gotten cleaned up multiple times due to a full hard drive (mainly logs, updates and system restore data)

Comment: Re: Unified Experience Across Devices (Score 1) 640

by guruevi (#48030731) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows 10

Windows 9x-ME was really Windows 4 all along. 2000 was version 5, XP-10 is version 6.

Most windows versions suck, regardless of version numbering. They suck less when it comes around to having a third service pack but they're still miles behind a real OS. (I haven't used windows computers at home since windows 3.11)

Comment: Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc (Score 1) 109

No, it means investing in better antenna equipment, I can get gigabit speeds on an unregulated frequency, a regulated frequency should be much easier. Japan has 100Mbps to individual mobile devices, setting up P2P wireless links is even easier. Even so, the country has paid said regulatory fees to ensure wired access to everyone.

Comment: Re:In US, restrictions based on finite RF frequenc (Score 1) 109

by guruevi (#47990143) Attached to: Not Just Netflix: Google Challenges Canada's Power To Regulate Online Video

The 'spectrum' or bandwidth of the Internet is virtually unlimited though. You just need to put in bigger pipes and even the smallest of the pipes you can currently get at an IX (1Gbps) can easily carry 1000 simultaneous viewers.

The ISP's only have exclusive rights to the last mile because we (the people) let them. For the most part, "the people" paid over and over again for this last mile as well as all the other miles (both phone and cable) through regulatory fees but either is being monopolized by a single provider. There is no technical reason that several providers couldn't offer you the 'last mile' connection. It's being done in several European countries where you have a pick of providers to offer you the last mile.

Comment: Because... (Score -1, Troll) 252

by guruevi (#47972505) Attached to: Do Specs Matter Anymore For the Average Smartphone User?

Because maintaining the status quo without innovating has worked out well for the consumers (eg. TI calculators)? Because what we need now is what we need in the future is for ISP's only?

You get better battery life AND increased specs to the crappy Nexus. Because your e-mail loads equally fast doesn't mean mine does (I have 10k+ messages in my inbox). Because you use your phone for simple games, doesn't mean I don't use it for viewing 3D brain scans.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47971059) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I used to be a preacher. I have studied various religions as part of my training to be a preacher. I changed my mind about my parental religion at great personal cost. I investigated other religious tenets (Christian and non-Christian) as various friends suggested they may be a 'better fit'.

If you're so wise, please tell me how religions are not trying to safeguard they're own individual collection of fables and myths?

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47971001) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Why does your life or anything at all have to have meaning? In the grand scheme of things, your 1-in-a-billion life form on a speck of dust in the middle of an average galaxy is insignificant. Absence of proof does not mean we can just instantiate a random object to explain things (Bertrand Russell's teapot).

You can devise a scientific test for love if you define what love is. Enjoyment is also relatively easy to explain in regards brain chemistry. You are free to believe what you want but what is the meaning of believing something you can never know for sure?

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47970973) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Not really, the why is not philosophical at all, it is testable and provable that the universe is big enough that random stuff, however remote the possibilities, happens all the time. The why and the how are identical from a scientific viewpoint, that's how science works. Scientists ask the why question and give a how answer.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47970955) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Time began with the Big Bang. There was no 'before' the Big Bang because time (as we know it) was not there (yet). Because the majority of people fails to understand the reasoning/math behind it doesn't make the theory invalid. We can measure this "mythical nothing", it's the same space between an atoms' nucleus and electron. There is a shit-ton of nothing, the majority of the Universe and everything that exists is "nothing". It may not make immediate sense to you but the Universe is not obligated to make something easier to comprehend, as long as the equations work out.

Comment: Re:Definition of religion (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47965127) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

No, the reason we don't accept "my/your god did it" is because if we did, we would still be in the stone age. If your god is just a variable to make a balance sheet work out, then there is no reason to keep looking for the cause of that variable. If we said today: God + evolution = life then we have no reason to look at the chemical processes behind abiogenesis because "god" did it and it fits the equation.

The god of the gaps is just that, as soon as we are able to fill the gaps, your god will be gone, heck your god has already gone from encompassing the entire universe, planets, stars etc to only being an entity to explain abiogenesis (we solved the origin of the universe a while ago if you didn't catch it yet). In the mean time you are an ignorant fool because "god did it" is easier for you to accept than "we don't know yet".

If you were truly honest, you would explain your god and how he is able to fill these gaps. If you can't explain god, if it is not falsifiable and testable, then it is invalid.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47965001) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

How is the process, why is the statistics. Why does our Universe exist? Because two particles chanced to meet. Why are we here? Because our species survived long enough for you to ask that question. And that is a better answer than a being that you cannot explain and is in itself contradictory. The Universe doesn't owe you an explanation and if there is no explanation, if it's just statistics, the why is just a pointless question. Fabricating a god because you are not satisfied that 'shit just happened to turn out well enough for you that you survived to ask the question' is disingenuous.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47964927) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Why can't science touch it? Lawrence Krauss has a pretty good explanation on how something came from nothing. It is falsifiable and testable, if it is wrong, he will gladly accept that.

If you have blind faith that your god exists, then you have no reason to look any further for any of the answers. Gods stop all invention, curiosity and reason because if "god" did it (which one btw?) then that is all the reason you need. Even if we don't know right now, nature through science has a much better answer for us and that answer will be much more beautiful and reasonable than "god".

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 794

by guruevi (#47964575) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

So why does the universe exist? Science tells us why (read an astrophysics text book) and it has very good reasoning and experimentation to back it up. Religions tell us 1000's of other answers which do not resemble either the scientific reason nor each other... so which one am I supposed to trust?

Even if all we had was a computer model that told us perhaps this is "why" the universe exists at all today, it's better than any religious answer I've ever heard. Religion is a business trying to safeguard a collection of fables and myths in order to sell you something that doesn't exist and won't help you in the slightest.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...