sees_all1

2 - It may be less than 30%, but its still #1 on the list. Losing your #1 customer hurts. 3. China has a looming problem - the current ratio of male births to females births is currently at 1.13 - and under 15 is at 1.17. A healthy population is much nearer to 1 - basically what this means is China is becoming a huge sausage fest. This can be directly attributed to their population controls. 4. If China demands its debt, the US will likely default. All of a sudden a large portion of China's wealth will vanish. Rationally, there is no reason to do that. Also, the US debt/gdp ratio is about 100% - which is lower than it was in 1945. There is still room to expand without too much cause for alarm, however with the current administration I have my doubts. 2012 can't come soon enough.

Everything you said is basically incorrect. Uh...? Hmm...? So do us a favor and go through point by point, providing counter examples. I'll help you out: 1. China is not economically dependent on the US because of ________________. 2. China's population controls help their economy and allow it to run smoother because of _________________. 3. The US doesn't have a serious debt problem since _______________ and also ________________.

Jagex stated a year or more ago that ideally the game would be half skilling, and half quests. This would take care of botting - the players actually playing runescape as it was intended won't have to worry about too much of a grindfest, the players grinding runescape can grind it to their heart's desire and ignore the content they never use (as people do already), and the bots will be left behind, as neither player in those two groups would need of their services (as of right now, the player that wants to do all quests can't because of level requirements may look to other methods of obtaining fast levels).

1. Quit putting words in my mouth. Fine, I'll let you say it: Electrical Engineering degree from Purdue University, Worked a year in industry on a project that used PKCS#7 and PKCS#12. ~8 years programming experience.

1. The NSA does more than just R&D. In fact, I would guess that they contract most of their R&D out. 2. Total Budget != R&D Budget. NSA is similar to the military, and I'm pretty sure part of the branch is tightly related to military operation. Also do you have top secret clearance? You don't? me neither. My friend does, but he still has no clue what the NSA spends their money on. So go ahead and estimate their net budget. It doesn't really grant any you compelling argument. What you said is there is absolutely no way that millions to billions of dollars have been spent on developing these algorithms, and you're wrong. Even if the ONLY place to ever develop these algorithms was the NSA, and they ONLY spent 1/1000th of their budget on developing data security LAST YEAR ALONE, and their budget last year was on the low estimate of 2 billion dollars, that still puts it at 2 million dollars spent last year alone. You're wrong, you're being stubborn, and you're making a bit of an ass out of yourself. I'm not reading your professors website, you linking me to it doesn't prove that you've read it, or that you've paid any attention in class. Also, learning about the implementation of AES isn't very pertinent to learning the history of encryption, is it? Also, developing codes for use in war is the EXACT SAME THING as using an algorithm to obscure data. Looking through a telescope at the stars isn't the EXACT SAME THING as sending a robot to mars. To put it your way, You can't have it both ways. Data security can't be cheap to develop and be incredibly complex. Don't worry, you've already lost your credibility with me.

While its impossible to know exactly who, or what God is (other than the trivial "love" answer), I believe I have found photographic evidence that God exists [hide] :twss: [/hide]

This is flat out wrong. The NSA alone, dedicated to this sort of thing, has a budget of somewhere between 2-10 billion dollars a year. They (Governments, Companies, Academia, etc.) have been working these specific algorithms for nearly 4 decades now (DES started in 1972, and was the precursor to many more algorithms), and countries/nations/empires have been working on encryption/decryption and code breaking for thousands of years. L2History. If you can't see the parallels between the two, let me spell them out: 1.There will always be people looking to break data encryption, just as there will always be people looking to beat Jagex's macro detection system 2.People looking to break data encryption already know everything about what they're trying to break (how the algorithm works, where its weak points may be), similar to everyone trying to write macro software can de-compile Jagex's client and examine the source code. 3. Once an algorithm has been beat, using it provides little to no protection. Once an anti-macro feature has been beat, using it does no good. These are all still beside the original point I was trying to make:

I didn't realize that the National Security Agency was a business. :rolleyes: Also, these security standards were an iterative design - that is to say that AES didn't come out of nowhere. It may have taken two guys to think of something, but they were only in the position to do it because they were standing on the shoulders of giants.

OMFG REPORTED. <3:

RSv2006 was so much better... there was like, no dungeoneering, and like, no gop, and like, no dice. No DICE!

The bigger point I'm defending, in case you've lost sight of it, is that your pasta parody isn't a religion.

So, basically, why would people die for their belief? Well, why would 918 people drink the poisoned kool-AID at Jonestown? Why would 74 members of a cult fight the US government to the death to defend their Messiah at Waco? Why would 39 people commit suicide for Marshall Applewhite in San Diego? Suicides because they're mentally unstable, peer pressure or otherwise. Waco was a massive F-up by the US government, and it is uncertain if the people inside the compound would've "fought to the death" - they died in a fire. The biggest difference between your three examples and the apostles is the apostles death's were not self inflicted, and were proceeded by torture. Early Christians were hunted down by Romans, they weren't killing themselves. Crucifixion also takes a very long time, and is probably the most painful form of death I can think of. Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie? How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word - why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different? Because the argument from personal experience does not validate anything, only that you have had a personal experience with it. We knowi things weren't purposefully placed their to lie--that is nonsense unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and is a weak argument in that sentiment. We also don't need to take their word for it because we have actual pictures from space and are always studying it, and people who do believe those things are lies--idiots. No nicer way to put it, they are either idiots or don't want to see the truth to hide in their ignorance to remain blissful. You know, because Photoshop and CGI don't exist. We still ridicule people with evidence of "flying saucers" even if they do manage to get a photo of it. Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual? I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things. The purpose of a lie is to get people to follow you. Simple. I can go out and make my own Religion, like Scientology, with their Thetan level ad all that nonsense. If you can obtain followers by telling them Demons interact with us and possess us, when clearly these people who are "possessed" are mentally ill, and you can tell the masses that you got the demons out and helped the soul, why wouldn't you do it? People lie because of gullibility. People lie to gain prestige and wealth. People lie because people are stupid sheep that need a shepherd. That is why people--especially "exorcists" or people like Pat Robertson--lie. And the Catholic priest speaking in the video firsthand about exorcisms has no wealth, was very reluctant to take on the job, and has very little prestige outside of the church he serves as a pastor to (unless he is asked to speak, then the people that gather for it remember his name for the 15 minutes after he gets done speaking).

I didn't realize anyone was still on a precious metal standard...

Last year America exported about $1.3 trillion in goods...

Secondly, if he is telling the truth, how can you say that he is correct rather than all of the other spiritual or religious men across the world? I bet I could find you 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions who all have very different explanations for what an exorcism is, what the soul is, and what you need to do to cleanse the soul. Are all of them right? So find 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions. Even if you do, you'll still find a common underlying theme - good and evil exists, and demons exist - all of which is essentially correct. He might require for them to pay for his travel expenses, or make a donation to some religious cause. He is a Catholic priest, so I can say without hesitating that he is poor.

You're absolutely brilliant. If you kindly reread my post, you'll notice the cost I mentioned is the time it took to develop the algorithm, not the time it takes for the algorithm to execute. The time it took IBM and the NSA to develop current standards is on the order of decades. No, not "most". The newest methods may have that long of a time, but older methods (all the rest) from the 1970's-80's are now able to be brute forced in as little as a day.

Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie? How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word - why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different? Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual? I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - http://vimeo.com/9704635. Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.

I never said that, you should reread my previous posts to get an accurate view of what I said. I'm using historical and verifiable facts as proof that there is something more to Christianity than there is to pastafarianism. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it fiction, especially when the events are non-secular. I'm explaining to you why I can hold other religions in such high regard while simultaneously frowning upon other "religions", and I'm using Christianity as an example. If those are the examples you want, look at any modern miracle, especially those used in the canonization of recent saints. Or listen to any tape recordings of exorcisms. In both cases the Catholic Church will exhaust all natural possibilities before jumping to a supernatural conclusion.

What do you want me to say, here is a notarized statement from 10 years ago that says God left His mark on this spot of land, along with the signatures of 1000 witnesses, and 25 independent verified video and tape recordings? You've already rejected all the evidence that I have, that has been presented here and elsewhere. "Na na na that's not good enough na na na na I'm not listening na na na na you need better evidence" :rolleyes:

Then imagine you existed 400 years ago. When astronomers said "Wait a minute, theres no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything" would your defense be "WAIT! Billions of people currently think it is!" Except you're forgetting a key point - "Wait a minute, there is no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything, and here is my evidence against conventional wisdom.

Quite frankly, we don't know if God looks like a bowl of spaghetti or not, but the intent of the idea plays a role in whether the idea is respectable or not, should be given any serious thought or not, or just shrugged off as a joke. The letter back in 2005 made its point quite well, and the people carrying the idea on today are just taking it too far. Actually, Christianity openly denounces non-believers and homosexuals. Saying that a man sleeping with another man is unnatural/wrong is not openly mocking people. Try again. Billions of people in the past believed that the Earth was the center of the universe...does that deserve merit too? We also thought that all objects had a distinct mass that can never change. Do we want to discredit special relativity and the relativistic mass? You've discredited your own point. In the past - no one educated believes it now. Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.

What is there to respect? 200mph at 80mpg? With a little modification of the seat and controls, sign me up. Absolutely not, in the same way I don't respect Scientology. We know exactly when they were created, we know exactly who they were created by, and we know exactly the reasons they were created, which weren't "divine inspiration." Its also a similar reason to why I don't respect Mormonism as a belief - the belief not the believers. Unlike Scientology and Mormonism, I have no respect for "believers" of "Pastafarianism" - simply because they don't exist. Anyone who says they believe they were touched by the magical noodly appendage is openly mocking organized religion. And, if they are being serious, I feel bad for them because they're too stupid to see the point and purpose of their "religion." We thought of the most absolutely ridiculous thing we could think of, then we applied everything we knew about other religions to it, and then challenged them to disprove their own parodied religion. Yes, I respect Christians and Christianity, in the same way I respect the beliefs/believers of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and other major religions. Its deserves special treatment because it isn't openly mocking people. And because no one believes it anyway, versus the 6 billion people that believe in something and recognize morality / good and evil, and unknown or difficult to understand forces not of this earth. Its not a complete joke because 11 of the original 12 followers of Christ were martyred for their belief. Laying all this academic mumbo jumbo aside, can you think of anything you believe in so strongly that you would die for it? Do you honestly think the so called believers of the FSM would stand firm and refuse to renounce their belief if they were tortured, only to suffer a slow and excruciatingly painful death? If there was nothing to religion, why would it stand the test of time for thousands of years, why would people spend their lives and deaths devoting themselves to a "joke"?

I'm not going to be worried about China, especially when it has its short-sighted and barbaric population controls, disproportionate male-to-female ratio (arguably as a result of population controls), and lack of basic civil rights such as free speech. At this point in time, China doesn't want the U.S. to fail, because if it did they'd be short-changed.