Seriously, when did we start spelling out everyone's jokes?
This is funny because SleazyRidr is expressing exasperation with a phozz bare's and bkaul01's either failure to grasp or insistence on re-emphasizing the punchline of the joke originally made by wbr1. There is also a possibility that SleazyRidr intended some irony by commenting on jokes starting with "Seriously"
Natural selection is the most visible cause, evolution is the effect. There are other causes to evolution, such as mutation and genetic drift (evolution).
I'm not sure I would say that distinction is "huge". Comment history suggests GP is not just some kind of creationist-troll. Curious what he meant.
And from where exactly do they propose we get these girlfriends for the crackers? If we accept the supposition that these are all a bunch of young persistently-single men, then clearly these men are either a) not putting in the effort / participating in activities conducive to getting a mate, or b) insufficiently desirable to any potential mate met thus far.
The common thread in both cases - there is no woman (also, why all the heteronormativity?) interested in him. So do they propose that we kidnap some women from the street and tell them that they're taking one for the team?
Women are people too. Just because it would solve your problem if a woman were to screw this guy, doesn't create an obligation for any particular woman to screw him. I guess you could hire a bunch of escorts, but is it really worth the cost of a decent hooker providing a "girlfriend experience" for long enough to fool the guy into thinking he actually has a girlfriend?
Often I fear for the future of this world, seeing the kind of people our socio/economic/educational climate is generating these days... Part of me feels that I'm just getting to the point where I no longer understand what it's like to be young, dumb, and full of reproductive fluids
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint"
Hesiod, 8th century BC
Ah, I see - you're a member of that particular age set. Explains it all.
Indeed. Someone went to a public forum and spoke unfairly ill of a demographic to which I belong, to which I have no choice about belonging, and which is fairly apparent to those around me, causing a personal effect on my life when people believe it is appropriate to generalize about that group and apply those generalizations to me. I see little difference between this and the reply "I see - you're a member of that particular race. Explains it all" to someone who accused you of racism.
Hey, want to know what's more funny than accusing someone of being "ageist?" Doing so, then going on a 3 paragraph rant in which you A) make assumptions about the person's age, and B) lambast prior generations for perceived wrongs.
While I did make a guess as to your age, none of my arguments were based on it - it was the conclusion, not the assumption. And I never did "lambast prior generations" for anything. If you care to read my comment, I make no claims about the behavior of those older than myself whatsoever.
Also "a three-paragraph rant" is a particularly dishonest way to characterize one paragraph summarizing a mathematical computation, one paragraph stating (but not arguing, as I do not agree) the views of others, and one paragraph of conclusion - the only one with any emotional content at all.
You kids crack me up...
This quote is more insightful than expected. By using this group identifier ("you kids" indicating all of us, even though only I am talking) you are evoking stereotypes of my demographic against me, and simultaneously attempting to attribute my actions in this thread to all of "you kids". Suppose that my actions in this thread are inappropriate - where you crossed the line into ageism is where you assumed that this reflects on the rest of my age group.
Why do I get the sinking feeling this particular AC falls into the 'under 25' age group?
Perhaps because you are ageist.
With the current life expectancy in the US (a hopefully appropriate assumption in a thread about minnesota) of 78.1 according to google and an assumption that nobody under the age of 13 has the patience or interest to hang out on a tech discussion site, you are guessing that a particular AC falls within (25-13) / (78-13) ~ 18% of the pool of candidate ages. To level that out to be a reasonable guess, we would need to assume that those under 25 are 50%/22% ~ 2.8 times more likely to fail to understand social responsibility. That's quite a gap, to assume we are almost 3 times as likely to eschew social responsibility.
While I certainly have no data, this seems to even be counter to largely accepted stereotypes of youth. I thought we were supposed to be bleeding-heart liberal hippies, letting our idealism prevent us from getting anything done? Stereotypically, the gray-haired investment banker in the fancy suit is the one who rejects social responsibility.
Why do I get the feeling you're in the "definitely over 25" age group? Hint: It's because paint us with such a broad stroke that clearly you have already dichotomized the world into "you all" (the "adults") and "us" (the "children" - many of whom have mortgages/rents, bills, responsibilities, retirement accounts, careers and credit histories by the way).
The important point that people seem to be missing is that quantum encryption *is* one-time pad. The system of quantum encryption consists of using entangled particles to be the shared source of randomness. Because both parties would be aware if anyone besides the two of them were observing the shared randomness, they can't exactly communicate via entanglement, but they can reach an arbitrary (ie. not decided by either of them) consensus on the values in a random stream. This random stream is then used as the key of a one-time-pad where the ciphertext is transported over a traditional channel of communication.
For this reason, I consider the term "quantum encryption" to be a bit of a misnomer - nothing about the actual en/de cryption is quantum. A better name would be "quantum key distribution" or "quantum consensus generation"
The atheistic point of view is to say that you believe there isn't a god. I understand the limits of epistemology, and I also recognize that many definitions of "god" are carefully constructed to be untested and non-falsifiable, thus making it obviously false to "know" its truth or falsity.
That said, I find the existence of God to be roughly as likely as the existence of dragons, unicorns, and flying reindeer and slightly less likely than the existence of the Chupacabra. I think that level of disbelief separates my point of view from those of the agnostics, justifying the use of a different term.
"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban