The Gaming Den

Ancient History wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Ancient History wrote:Different beast. If you question the validity of a law, that's the equivalent of attacking an axiom.

Are you a lawyer? No, then shut up. I am talking about equity.

Are you a lawyer? Because it seriously doesn't look like you're talking about equity.

Yes, I am really talking about equity. Even if you are only getting this from a wikipedia page and not from the actual fucking practice of law, I don't know how you can read "equity is the set of legal principles that supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly." or "allowing courts to use their discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law." and not see that this is obviously what I am referring to when when I say that sometimes the law does in fact content with whether a law is just or fair.

Foxwarrior wrote:

Starmaker wrote:1. You aren't going to have everything you want, fullstop.
Therefore, you have to make compromises and establish priorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

I must have been unwell the day I took you off ignore. You are only present in one place simultaneously and can process only that much sensory input. It is tautologically true that you can't help but prioritize. If you want to climb Everest and descend into the Mariana trench, you can pick only one right now. Now, you might be saying it's possible to just roll a die for the next action because loldongs, but that'd just mean you consciously chose to attempt to prove someone wrong on the internets at the expense of your productivity.

Starmaker wrote:

Foxwarrior wrote:

Starmaker wrote:1. You aren't going to have everything you want, fullstop.
Therefore, you have to make compromises and establish priorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

I must have been unwell the day I took you off ignore. You are only present in one place simultaneously and can process only that much sensory input. It is tautologically true that you can't help but prioritize. If you want to climb Everest and descend into the Mariana trench, you can pick only one right now. Now, you might be saying it's possible to just roll a die for the next action because loldongs, but that'd just mean you consciously chose to attempt to prove someone wrong on the internets at the expense of your productivity.

How the fucking fuck is existence in one location in any remotely sane way related to the fucking is-ought problem? How the fuck do you think that is an answer.

Would you shut the fuck up if I changed premise 2) to "I want to brutually torture someone right now significantly more than anything else."? Why the fuck do you think localized existence has anything to fucking do with the is-ought divide? Why?

Can this prolonged and pointless philosophical discussion be taken to a non-news thread?

Kaelik wrote: 1) Me not having everything I want is wrong. (See how fucking useless your initial premise is?)
2) I want to brutally torture people.
Therefore: torturing people is right.

I'm pretty sure that your second axiom is objectively and verifiability wrong.

Generally speaking, torture sucks for the torturer almost as much as it does for the torturee. Basic human empathy can be ignored, but suppressing it is harder. People who engage in torture tend to suffer for it mentally and emotionally.

The thing is, when it comes to punishment, is that the reality doesn't match the fantasy. Torturing people who your angry at sounds like fun. Actually doing it or watching it done is just horrific. And people involved in that sort of thing tend to suffer from serious mental issues and have high suicide rates.

In the real world, extreme punishments are made easier by hierarchy and division of labor. The ordering the punishment rarely witness the punishment, and are thus left with the rather clean and satisfying fantasy in their heads instead of the horrible bloody truth of it. While the people carrying it out are conditioned to follow orders and thus ignore their own discomfort.

And the reason punishments tend to be lighter in the modern era is that the advent of photography, motion pictures, and mass media, means that the public at large can see how horrible it really is and become suitably outraged.

Because even if the person being tortured did bad things, it's still sickening.

hyzmarca wrote:I'm pretty sure that your second axiom is objectively and verifiability wrong.

It is certainly objectively wrong of me. I get sick at the sight of bloody wounds and wince in pain at all sorts of other things. But there is no reason to believe that is true of every human being, because people do in fact commit terrible crimes. I mean would you feel better if I said "lock my daughters in a basement for 17 years and have sex with them and get them pregnant" because that actually happened, so clearly at least one guy really wanted that and you can't even contest that.

I think it is sufficiently likely that someone who enjoys torturing other people also exists, since there is an actual word for those people and everything.

Kaelik wrote:

hyzmarca wrote:I'm pretty sure that your second axiom is objectively and verifiability wrong.

It is certainly objectively wrong of me. I get sick at the sight of bloody wounds and wince in pain at all sorts of other things. But there is no reason to believe that is true of every human being, because people do in fact commit terrible crimes. I mean would you feel better if I said "lock my daughters in a basement for 17 years and have sex with them and get them pregnant" because that actually happened, so clearly at least one guy really wanted that and you can't even contest that.

I think it is sufficiently likely that someone who enjoys torturing other people also exists, since there is an actual word for those people and everything.

While true, it remains that the vast majority of people don't. Statistical morality can be problematic, but it's certainly scientifically verifiable.

We can, in fact, show large groups of people videos of torture and measure thir emotional reactions to it.

hyzmarca wrote:While true, it remains that the vast majority of people don't. Statistical morality can be problematic, but it's certainly scientifically verifiable.

We can, in fact, show large groups of people videos of torture and measure thir emotional reactions to it.

Wargalbargl? Garbarwhargalargarbarg? Whalarbargaragarararararar?

Is that a language you understand? Because, I mean, obviously English isn't, or you would know why what you just said is super fucking dumb and evinces a clear lack of understanding of what the fuck is being talked about.

I started reading this conversation with Starmaker's "I must have been unwell the day I took you off ignore...", and had to back up to figure out what was going on.

I have become very confused.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/v ... tions.html
ugh, this grates on my nerves to no end for some reason x.x
probably because this is more water on the wheels of the people crying for video game bans instead of gun bans after somebody goes on a shooting spree . .

It's just fucking muscle memory. After I stopped wearing a watch, I kept looking at my wrist for the time for months. If you've done a thing a lot, you will do it without thinking.

Here's the full text if anyone cares.

http://m.click2houston.com/news/two-men ... index.html

I heard him heading to the bedroom where I was, so I jumped in the closet and I grabbed one of my replica swords [Master Sword], and I pulled it out and stood at the doorway, and he was coming down the hallway at me while I was yelling, 'Go away, you don't live here' and he just walked right into the point of the sword

*twitch twitch*
i guess it was only a question of tick tock . . http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/07/stun-copter-video/

Stahlseele wrote:*twitch twitch*
i guess it was only a question of tick tock . . http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/07/stun-copter-video/

LAME, his face didn't even explode. :/

I'm not sure if I should post this here or in the Politics thread, but here goes...

DING DONG THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!

Hey now, calling Fred Phelps a witch is a little uncalled for.

First it besmirchs witches everywhere. Second, I'm pretty sure Satan has standards for whom he accepts blowjobs from in exchange for power.

Okay, true enough. But how many quotes from pop culture are out there about an evil douche dying and and celebrating said death?

Speaking of celebrating, upon hearing the news of Phelps corking it, I stripped naked, jumped on the pool table, and did the worm. I also changed my sexual orientation from vegisexual to gay for the day, just to spite the bastard.

Ancient History wrote:http://www.abc27.com/story/25030945/lan ... ame-halted

Weird. I actually played it; it's so awful that there are many relatively pristine copies around. I think the Video Games Museum at E3 has least 4 on display.

Heartbleed: the biggest Internet security exploit so far.

So, basically, back in 2011, the OpenSSL code was "fixed" and included a bug. The bug allows any unauthenticated user to be able to get 64k of memory, which often includes plaintext usernames and passwords, and other sensitive information.

So, once all of the banks, email servers, and other online sites that store user data get their OpenSSL patched, everyone will have to change their login info. Yay.

Two coworkers were hinting at the possibility of NSA involvement, but it's purely speculative. The code that contained the bug was complex to the point of being obfuscated, so it was likely put in on purpose by someone. Since OpenSSL is open source, that patch is documented.

Yeah, that one is seriously pretty bad. Mind, being obfuscated doesn't mean it was on purpose. Even my classwoandrk gets pretty incomprehensible when a deadline is looming, and I imagine cryprography is a million times worse. However, as to whether or not the NSA knew about it, no bet. Finding that stuff and not telling people is their main job and they're pretty good at it.

Also, the 64kb potentially includes the cryptographic keys used by the protocol, and apparently it can be used on stored data from prior sessions as well as ongoing ones. So basically for three years the most common method of secure internet communication was fundamentally broken.

Today thanks to the European court, pirating copyrighted files is now illegal here.

That wasn't true before?