Sayonara

Which is not the issue. I am simply illustrating that the fact that some users are ignorant of other services is not an attribute of SuprNova, or the situation with the site's closure - it is an attribute of that group of users, and as such does not make the subject 'more tragic'.

That definition is entirely wrong (except maybe for the "one who" part.) Dictionaries are not technical references. What is your objective?

But it is still there. A measure of significance is not a requirement.

Most societies already have disposable humans.

Look, it's just a tactical move on the part of SuprNova's admins - read between the lines on their announcement; it's not that subtle. To suggest that the MPAA felled the organisation is simply not a true account of the events. There is no way the MPAA or anyone else can kill the protocol BitTorrent uses, and as long as the architecture of the net stays decentralised, there's no way they can stop people using it. SuprNova is dead, long live Exceem. And so forth.

No, hacking is not gaining unauthorised access to a computer. You are talking about cracking, which is a completely different thing. If you can't do what you want to do on a network that you have control over, then it isn't set up properly. If you don't have complete admin rights to the computers on the network, then you should not be expected to fullfill the responsibilities that go with that role (i.e. making sure everyone has all the latest updates.)

Yes, of course it was an exagerration. I am simply making the point that you don't go defending your assets against "random shit". If you do, it's not an asset; it's a money pit.

I disagree - the state of affairs doesn't change based on the person's knowledge of it.

There are obviously some things you can immediately rule out, like hollowing out planets and putting your ships inside them.

The short answer is of course "we can't". The long answer is "we can try". Actually, I suppose that's quite short on its own. Basically it breaks down into lots of little comparisons: e.g. "is it easier to move out of the way of [this particular weapon], or build a system that can repel it?" We can do this because, while we may not know how much a square meter of adamantium costs in 2347, we have a good idea of how engineering and physical processes contrive to create their own problems. This does of course assume you know what you're building the system for, which is kind of the point. All of which takes us waaaaay back to post #63 and TWJian's overlooked suggestion.

Shhhhh.

You basically repeated what I said (albeit without the sarcasm) and came to the opposite conclusion (and some extra conclusions that don't follow on from anything.) You're talking about active and passive defence systems like they're mutually exclusive. I'm talking about this mythical machine that was being discussed up the thread, which has a different defensive subsystem for every conceivable form of attack. Now, you need to decide what you're arguing against before you continue this. Either you agree that the armed forces use things called "budgets" and respond to threats in the way that is most cost-effective, or you live in wacky la la world where a publically-funded organisation has no accountability whatsoever and spends endless billions refitting all its helicopters to repel land mines, submarines to repel TOW, et cetera. I'm sure you don't mean to put words in my mouth, because that rarely ends well. Of course cost:benefit is relevant to the thread - it will determine if a shielding system is ever put into use. If a shield system is too expensive to manufacture or maintain, that's as much of a reason for not considering it as "it doesn't work". You can't expect to ignore real world implementation problems in a thread that is dealing with real world physics. If cost is not an issue, then why not just use a giant lead shell 20m thick? Oh yeah, because it's stupid. "Moving out of the way" is cheaper, and it lets us see what's around us. Your posts read as if you have not read the thread, but simply jumped in at "Again: cost vs benefit". Considering your banal response earlier I don't think you have really thought through what it is you want to say: Surely you must realise that this is currently the case, has been for some time, and will be for goodness knows how long?

Putting something in block capitals is not a substitute for explaining how it works.

"Only" is simply not true.

Ah right, that'll be why we fight wars with 50 gigaton mechs then.

No, it's not democratic.

Ignorance is clearly not the root of all evil, so I see no need to read the o/p. MrL's rebuttals look fun though.

Mods can change the title of the thread. When standard users change the title by going to "edit", it only changes the title of the post.

Yes, I was sure that had happened before.

I honestly don't care.

Atinymonkey got me an Invader Zim toy. Wootage

It's pretty much inevitable tbh. In 40 years they'll be old hat (although the fabrication technology will no doubt have to change.)

Near Earth Object. Come on, at least try.

That phrase "Happy Holidays" (or rather, the patronising thinking behind it) makes me sick. I don't suppose anyone has considered it might offend people who can't actually have a holiday at Christmas? Oh no! Offense! Head for the hills. Merry Christmas everyone. If I didn't wish you a good [insert your festival here], it's because I'm not actually psychic, rather than because of some mythical political incorrectness.