Jump to content

Seattleite

Member
  • Posts

    1,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Seattleite

  1. That is not realistic. At all. That's just rocket tag.
  2. (See rant in general gun info.)
  3. You can fill a year just fine.
  4. I'm actually doing a run with no power armour.
  5. Also, measurements of the exit wound are highly misleading. It's not actually a hole that wide, people. It's just lacerations stretching out from where it exits. They also usually measure in the head or upper back, where there's bone close to the skin and the lacerations are wider. This is not the same as the actual hole being that size, the actual hole at the exit point is only slightly wider than the entry wound, enough that medical professionals sometimes get them confused even with high-velocity rifle rounds. There was considerable debate, for instance, about which of JFK's wounds were entry and exit wounds, by coroners who are trained for this sort of thing. And not just his head wound, either, his arm wound and the wounds of the passenger in front of him. Shot placement also trumps calibre. A .22 bullet to the heart is a guaranteed (if not immediate) fatality (with modern medical technology, who knows about the future), while a .45 to the lung just centimetres away is not only survivable, it only has a 30% fatality rate worldwide, which includes a lot of places where medical care does not exist. That isn't to say calibre isn't significant, it is, by my math a .45 does about seven times as much damage as a .22, shot placement is just much more significant. (That math, by the way, is for non-expanding rounds. The gap should only be enormous, not colossal, for expanding rounds.) And the pistol vs. rifle debate largely depends on ammunition. A rifle of a given calibre can vary so massively in terms of damage, much more than a pistol, that it's ludicrous to directly compare the two. Suffice to say that if the bullet does not expand or yaw the pistol's (usually) larger calibre wins, but if the rifle bullet expands it expands a lot more, if it yaws it's effectively a larger bullet, and if it fragments all bets are off. Modern military rifle ammunition does not expand or fragment, is inexplicably all armour-piercing (well, not inexplicably, our politicians signed contracts with the manufacturers) and almost never yaws. As a result, yes, our 5.56mm core-penetrator uber-stable mega-sleek boat-tailed spitzer rounds DO absolutely suck ass compared to even 9mm pistol rounds, but if we loaded our rifles in a way determined by effectiveness instead of idiotic contracts with manufacturers signed by politicians who have no idea what the FUCK they're doing, our rifles would be several times more damaging. And we know they would, we had better ammo in Vietnam despite having worse technology and using the shittiest weapons in the Armalite family. Overall, if there's a thing the average person believes about guns, especially when it comes to terminal ballistics, it's almost certainly not true. Except for the whole "leaves holes in things" part, that's totally accurate.
  6. So, a small child just ran down our driveway nude. Uh... I kinda wish I knew which house he came from. Reckon his parents would like to know about that. Though frankly, if they don't know he's running around naked, they're not exactly the world's best parents. Edit: Looks like they know. Either that or we just coincidetally have a woman running around with tiny clothes in her hands.
  7. Okay. For that, use a primate brain or something. Problem solved. Okay, not really, but that's a stupid thing to use an AI for anyway, just use robots all the time and have a little human oversight. I'm done with this conversation at this point. When my fuck supply is replenished maybe I'll give one but right now I'm fresh out.
  8. The sleep part I can actually answer. We sleep, near as we can tell, to flush out waste chemicals from our brain. Do that automatically with a support system, and we wouldn't need to sleep. We also repair tissue damage while sleeping, likely just for convenience's sake, but without a body the brain wouldn't need that either. Also, that given task would not require an AI. Why would you want a full AI just to monitor a data stream? That's stupid. If your needs aren't enough to require an AI, don't use an AI. And if they are enough to require an AI, I think keeping it busy will be a non-issue.
  9. The problem is that quantum computing might not even be POSSIBLE. And our current advancement is the solid state drive, actually, and it too has a hard limit that isn't that much higher. I mean, a couple orders of magnitude but that is NOT enough. Also, any of these generates a significant amount of heat. Packing it into smaller spaces produces more heat. If you don't mind your entire building-sized computer being hotter than the centre of the sun, that's not a problem. But you do mind, what with the whole "destroying itself and everything else around for miles by being so hot it puts out hard rads" thing. The best option would be to just find a way to make an actual human brain and manipulate it for your ends. Find a way to produce just a brain, support it inside a machine, and tweak it to do what you need to. Then we find a way to make it interface directly with a more conventional computer, and we've got all the benefits of a human brain and all the benefits of a supercomputer, in a compact package.
  10. We also have super-extra-double-plus-good compression on all the data we take in. I'd wager that's most of our processing power, right there, just compressing everything because we take in a batshit crazy amount of data, all the time. We also NEED TO, in order to function in the real world as we do. So no, you CANNOT make a robot brain orders of magnitude less powerful by removing these complexities, because what you're cutting is its interpretation of sensory input, analysis of said data, and mega-compression of all of said data. Your "simple" robot would be dumb as shit and have absolutely no perception whatsoever. It would also miss out on our maximum-overcompression and fill up its hard drives in hours while ours last decades. This is a no-go.
  11. When Moore wrote that, we thought the human brain was MILLIONS OF TIMES less powerful than it is. We also didn't know there was a hard limit on processing power with all current technologies. We need to create entirely new computing methods to advance much further.
  12. Just to note the biggest problem with trying to make human-like AI, do you know how much processing power your brain has? They managed to replicate brain activity with the K Supercomputer in Kobe, Japan. It took the combined power of all 82,944 processors 40 minutes to simulate 1% of 1 second of brain activity. As in, the human brain is TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND times faster than the world's most powerful super computer. Quick and dirty math says it would take NINETEEN BILLION, NINE HUNDRED AND SIX MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND processors to match our brain, and 2.4 billion watts to run them all. That's a nuclear reactor right there, where a human brain runs off of 20 watts and gets them out of metabolising GLUCOSE, for fuck's sake. What was it Ross said? That once you reach a certain point, there are really huge barriers and you need to contend with reality? Yeah, that's the understatement of the fucking century. Replicating this machine is just not possible. And there's no point, either. Why would you make a computer that has 240,000 times the power of our greatest super-computer, and impede its abilities so much it has trouble doing long division? That's just fucking stupid, nobody would ever do that. Human-level AI is not only impossible, it's extraordinarily wasteful and pointless.
  13. And FDR beat bill after bill through an obstructionist congress, used more executive actions than any president in history, and erased opposition through threats of career destruction to the most obstructionist senators. (Basically, he threatened to primary them and endorse their opponents, which would knock most of them out of office and potentially end some of their careers.) From a political standpoint, the man was fucking brutal, but that's what we needed. Not sure Sanders can be that aggressive, but I don't doubt he'll get a lot done too.
  14. A point I've made before, but not in this thread. Guns fire bullets. Bullets are tiny pieces of metal moving really fast, and they perform as such. They're just a means of inflicting puncture wounds at a distance. That's it. Most people who get shot survive. Those who die mostly die from blood loss. If it isn't blood loss, it's usually infection. If it isn't blood loss or infection, it's organ failure. Blood loss usually takes a couple minutes, infection a couple days, organ failure is all over the place but usually takes even longer than infection. People usually stop when wounded by choice. They give up, or they choose to focus on their wounds instead of on fighting or fleeing. Sometimes this is a good idea, sometimes a bad idea, but whichever it is that's what they choose to do and they could choose otherwise, or even change their mind after they've been "stopped" and resume fighting or fleeing because they aren't physically incapacitated. But *can* a gun physically incapacitate somebody? Well, yes, but that term itself needs to be addressed. "Incapacitation" is an extremely nebulous term, and highly misleading. A severed tricep, a shattered kneecap, a deflated lung, losing a litre of blood, running a fever due to infection, these could all count as incapacitation and the military would deem you "combat ineffective" with any one of them, but you are still physically capable of fighting to an extent, if you really have to. A gunshot wound could do any of these, and a larger bullet would do them easier and better, but even if you had all the above, you aren't *completely* stopped. A man can have their main arm and a leg disabled, have trouble breathing, be weak and unsteady and feverish from infections in days-old wounds, and still hold a gun. They'll be a shite shot, they're still dangerous and you'd be a fool to dismiss them. Severing somebody's spinal cord high enough would completely incapacitate them, but this is exceptionally difficult as it takes both a lot of power and a lot of precision. (More of one means you need less of the other.) Rendering them unconscious through head trauma could also do it, but it's really hard to do immediately and that would require lots of power and precision (more of one means you need less of the other). Dropping somebody's blood pressure through cardiac trauma could also do it, but actually causing them to lose consciousness from it immediately would functionally require you to destroy their entire heart, and it would LITERALLY take a cannon to do that. So really, when using a gun in combat, the goal is neither to kill somebody right away nor is it to completely stop them. The goal is the same as in any lethal combat, which is to not get killed. While the wounds you leave on an opponent won't stop them completely, at least not right away, they sure do help avoid getting killed. Guns are better at this only because they have longer range than most other weapons, and other weapons with their range have really massive drawbacks that they don't have. They don't have magic powers, and they don't need to in order to be our best weapons. And they ARE our best weapons, 90% of the time.
  15. Yeah, I know, I noticed that while writing and it's very, very weird. If there's still another 69 delegates and they have 100% reporting, why exactly are the other 69 delegates not allotted yet? I mean, I know, very sophisticated math, takes a while, but let me see if I can do it. *AHEM* 101*.727=73.427 101-73=28. Sanders 73, Clinton 28. Oh, wait, that math wasn't hard AT ALL. I didn't even need a fucking calculator. And yeah, looks like 103 total delegates for Sanders, to 39 for Clinton. Epic win for Birdie Sanders today. (Have you seen that, by the way? It's just silly little thing that happened at a Sanders rally in Oregon.) "I think... I think there may be some symbolism here."
  16. A bit of a defeatist, aren't you?
  17. I am in a good mood. I mean, a really good mood. Also, Zaraki, liking the new avatar.
  18. Yeah, well, she'd love several other things I could do. But I'm trying to pass the time until we can go back to our original plan. Of... You know... Sex. Which technically, in a way, we're having right now. Kinda. Not really. I mean, I'm typing and not really moving any part of my body not related to typing. I mean, entertainment for 2-3 hours, or a cure for whiskey dick. One of the two.
  19. Sitting here, embarrassed, pinned down. Apparently two bottles of wine is too much, and I am stuck here until I sober up enough to do what I promised. So... Anybody got any ideas on how to pass the time? No, seriously, I have NO apps on my phone and she won't move.
  20. First thought: "WE HAVE AN IRC?" Second thought: "WHY DOESN'T THE IRC WORK?"
  21. Buying wine to watch the coverage with my girlfriend. Also pizza-bites, chips and condoms. Same purpose.
  22. My notes as it was ongoing are under the spoiler tags. Final results are in. But before I list them... We need some music. Appropriate music for the results we got. QAnky-QJwII In Washington, Bernie won with 72.7% of the vote to Hillary's 27.1% of the vote, picking up 25 delegates to her 9. In Alaska, Bernie won 81.6% of the vote to Hillary's 18.4% of the vote, picking up 13 delegates to her 3. In Hawaii, Bernie won 69.8% of the vote to Hillary's 30.0% of the vote, picking up 17 delegates to her 8. In total, Bernie picked up 55 delegates and Hillary picked up 20. That is, he got 73% of the delegates by crushing her in all three states. That's what we like to call a "blowout".
  23. I see smoke on the horizon... I'm going to clear out before the flames get here.
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.