I can go one better. I haven't played AC or WoW. I'm also a RPG gamer who prefers stealth over brute force.

Just too many other options.

Brute force is no match for skill, technique, and brute force combined.

*music
*metal

It'll be useful eventually, but I wouldn't bank on soon. My final project in college was related to quantum computing, which at the time (18 years ago) was effectively entirely theoretical. I've enjoyed seeing the steady, albeit slow, progress.

The areas where quantum computing will really shine are problems which involve a huge number of possible answers, but only one best or correct one. The traveling salesman problem is a classic of computer science, as you can scale it up in complexity to the point where any traditional computer will eventually choke on the sheer number of permutations to test. Great way to demonstrate the need for clever solutions and well-written algorithms vs brute force approaches. An adequately sophisticated quantum computer, however, will theoretically be able to solve the traveling salesman problem nearly instantly, regardless of the level of complexity / number of nodes to navigate. Because it just tests all possible answers simultaneously.

Hell yeah! I also like how it was brute force at the start then they were like... oh yeah... it has wheels, let's use those!

Now this is good footage. You see and hear what the cop sees and hears and you actually have context before the incident. This why all cops should wear body cams and why body cam footage should be released to the public.

The cop was entirely justified here. The suspect tried to flee the scene, refused to cooperate or comply with commands and physically resisted arrest. When the suspect repeatedly tried to keep the car door open with her legs, the cops made the correct choice in pepper-spraying her. It's very hard to close a door when someone is aggressively pushing it open. Brute force might have worked but that would have been dangerous and potentially lead to accidental injury. Pepper spray was the safest option.

And newtboy, ignoring the police is not "totally fine." In fact, it's one of the dumbest and most dangerous things you can do. Police are authority figures with the right to detain or arrest you. As such, the best way to deal with police is to listen and cooperate in a civil manner. If the girl had done that, she wouldn't have been cuffed, carried off to the police car or pepper-sprayed. I know it's cool to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but at a certain point, pride needs to give way to reason and logic.

I think the idea is the scientific method will, over time, after a complete loss of the knowledge gained, come to the same main theories we have today. Religion, on the other hand has little chance to be remotely similar to its present form without humans brute-forcing its tenets and stories. Much like the religion of the Mayans won't spontaneously evolve again without (the science of) archeology.

I find that to be intimidating. So many points of failure. If they'd made it like a massive Falkirk wheel, or doubled it like the Peterborough lift lock, I'd be more impressed. Just something about it that screams "we brute-forced the engineering", which is never a good idea.

Breaking the board is the important bit, but how you break it is even more important. Learning how to punch correctly takes time, effort, concentration, discipline etc, you learn about yourself and about life's challenges in a natural way. It's not something that can be forced fed into you in this contrived manner, because the pain of persistent effort and burden of continual concentration in your mind is much greater than any temporary physical pain. Truly challenging yourself is much harder than any task someone else can set for you.

Otherwise, what is the lesson here? Life is hard, so don't prepare, and then use brute force to make up for it later? Life and martial arts are both about applying the most elegant and effective solution that fit the problem, not about brute forcing your way through things.

So really, the instructor has failed at training both the mind and body here. If he wants the child to believe in himself that he can punch, then teaching the right technique will give the child that confidence in much better way. The child would have never doubted his ability to punch well in the first place, as he overcame life's challenge long before it even was a challenge.

Coming back to the topic, anti-abortionists do not realize that you cant force people to be your version of moral.

You can enforce common concepts of morality by law but you first have to stop lying to yourselves about what those common concepts are and then be willing to accept a compromise.

An overwhelming majority of educated, civilized people now (as oppposed to a hundred years ago) believe (yep that stupid word again) that women, non-whites, marihuana smokers and liberals AND social democrats AND atheists, among others, are acceptable members of society capable to decide on their own what is good and bad, moral and immoral. Not just the grumpy rich old white anglo-saxon gentlemen club members anymore.

It is not a good tactic to try to decide approved morality for these "other" people either by means of social or real slavery, legislation, economic pressure or plain old brute force or gunpoint.

Rubio mentioned (off of one of his implanted CD´s) in one of the debates something about liberals wanting to legalize abortions to up to one day before the scheduled birth. It doesn´t get much more stupid than that.

Trump apparently switched to pro-life a couple of years ago in a press release.

Cruz favours condoms over abortion (which is IMHO fine BTW), oblivious to what the true christian stance is on condoms.

So anyway it is very difficult for the majority of civilized, educated people to accept this notion that ALL abortion is immoral and should be illegal just because SOME people maintain that view based on ideology and belief.

Once you get that in your head you can start having a discussion about which possible abortion cases are really immoral and unacceptable and in which cases you should concentrate on helping the woman rather than the little glob of cells trying to survive in a hostile environment.

If you REALLY want babies to survive you have to help the women, Bob, you cant go against them.

Monkey Island games were always wacky and difficult puzzles simply because it required you to think of objects in such ways as to break the fourth wall of the game itself. Guybrush and his infinite pocket space.

Also note, these are good games despite their frustrating bits. There were far more frustrations prior to the days where you are given dialog choices, when you were required to type in all of the dialog options using key words. Cough, cough, older Tex Murphy games and just about every text adventure from the dawn of home computers.

I loved those games, but many of them turned into puzzles that maybe one person in the family finally figured out after brute force trying thousands of combinations of objects with each other. I did that multiple times in the original Myst. I think there was one passcode that took close to 10,000 attempts. LOL!

Or how about games that had dead ends but didn't alert the player? Cough, cough Maniac Mansion. People could die, but as long as one person was left alive, the game never ended, even though only the bad endings are left. But it's not like modern games, some of the bad endings were themselves puzzles, and some deaths lead to a half good and half bad ending, like winning a lottery and then having a character abandon the plot altogether because he/she is rich and then THE END.

Those were the days. None of this FNAF shit -- which is really what deserves the infamy of terrible, convoluted puzzles...

Before video games became as massively popular as they are today, it wasn't always a requirement to make your game easily solved and you were not always provided with prompts for failure or success until many grueling hours, days, months, sometimes YEARS of random attempts. How many families bought a Rubik's Cube versus how many people solved it without cheating and learning the algorithms from another source?

Go back hundreds or thousands of years and it wasn't common for chess or go or xiangqi (the most popular game in the entire world TODAY) to come with rules at all, so only regions where national ruling boards were created will there be standardized rules; so, the truth, rules, patterns, and solves of games have traditionally been obfuscated and considered lifelong intellectual pursuits; and, it's only a recent, corporatized reimagining of games that has the requirement of providing your functional requirements and/or game rulings so as to maintain the value of its intellectual property. I mean, look at how Risk has evolved since the 1960s -- now there's a card that you can draw called a "Cease Fire" card which ends the game, making games much shorter and not epic at all. Easy to market, but old school players want the long stand offs -- I mean, if you're going to play Risk... TO THE BITTER END!

Correction, the Air Force Brass hates them. Why?

1. They work perfectly for the role they were designed for. Brass want a plane that will be obsolete after 15 years or so, so that they can score big with plane mfg's

2. The typical AFB idea of close combat is a few miles away by button. You shouldn't be close enough to see the carnage. Just a poof and turn around to land. Having such a brute force plane is distasteful to them.

3. The A10 is called to support infantry most of the time. The Air Force overall still has a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Army and other 'ground' forces. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go out of their way to piss on an infantryman if he was on fire.

Basically the A10 is similar to the Harrier, it works well, it's not flashy, and it takes a beating. Complete opposite of most Air Force planes. The F35 that they want to replace both with is a joke and is mindbogglingly more expensive. If you watch any video that has an A10 pilot in it, talking about the plane, they can't sing it's praises enough. Sadly they have no say in whether it gets replaced.

Typical "special characters" are boring, and long passphrases are tiresome.

For maximum fun and security, try a passphrase that mixes vocabulary, grammar, character sets, and input methods from multiple languages. It helps if you learn how to touch type in at least one of the other languages.

For example: лщкуhaぺれけるちゃてるьгяглф死

This is a very simple, easy to remember phrase that can be entered manually if necessary in under 10 seconds. I suspect it would be rather resistant to most brute force attacks. (If you're able to make sense of this example passphrase, congratulations!)

Of course, some password storage systems may not be willing or able to accept this sort of creativity, but such is life.

Hockey is a violent sport. A lot of hockey people think that allowing fights, which in the NHL usually happen between each team's designated "goons", prevents or lessens other dirty/dangerous play that would build up with unchecked aggression that is a pretty natural part of the sport. That's an oversimplification, but one of the major justifications.

I love watching hockey. I think it is a great sport that allows for many different paths to victory -- you can have a winning team made up of fast, graceful, highly skilled players, OR cerebral, teamwork based players, OR intimidating, brute force goons. Or a mix of any/all of those.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a fan. I didn't grow up with hockey in my blood (not from Canada), but became a fan in my teens. But, I do actually see a certain amount of logic in the hockey pundits argument that fighting cuts down on other dirty play. I think that if anyone watches enough hockey, they see evidence that it is true. Maybe not quite as true as the pro-fight pundits suggest, but it is there.

Better officiating, penalties, and suspensions for the kinds of dangerous / dirty play that fighting is supposed to cut down on would help. Even though I think fighting has a place in the game, the NHL does need to evolve some more consistency in those areas.

I'm a Colorado Avalanche fan. The Avs main rival for a long time was the Detroit Red Wings, and then a former Wings player (Brendan Shanahan) became the head of player safety. His job was basically to review dirty plays or plays that resulted in an injury, and dole out warnings/suspensions/fines. He took a lot of flack for inconsistency; many people thought that in two similar incidents he might hand out a long suspension to one and a slap on the wrist to the other. But even though he was from my "rival team", I thought he did a pretty good job, and it represented a great step forward for the NHL. The thing that I thought he did really well was that for every incident he reviewed, there was always a video available on the internet showing what happened from multiple angles followed by his thoughts on it, what disciplinary action he was going to issue, and his justifications for it. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree about that kind of stuff, but he put it out in the open instead of behind closed doors.

To me, that was a big step forward for the NHL. If they continue on that path, I think it is reasonable to suggest that fighting will become less important/necessary/beneficial. But I think it will always be at least a small part of the game.

Cool video. But, as a Batman fan I downvote this on principle alone. Detective Comics, FEATURING Batman. Not, Batman sometimes -- Batman ALL of the time. You just don't ki... -- SPOILER ALERT --

Batman is a detective above all other things. This is Hollywood brute force shallow understanding Batman. He has the intuition to study his enemies physical weapon, yet not to understand the power of the dark side? Not the Batman I know. He would likely have not placed himself in that situation in the first place, or would have hunted down a relic or a friend with powers to combat Vadar's force powers.

Also, no reference to "fear" leading to anger... Batman's use of fear has even made him a candidate for Sinestro Corps' yellow power ring. Batman IS fear. If this series is against Batman's frequent use of other heroes, he would have gone out of his way to study the force himself, embrace the dark side for which he already serves, and THEN fucking force crush Vadar into submission. Pitiful.

Good video, poor writing based on an inferior understanding of the Batman. This is a video supposedly based on nerd cred, so wtf I have to put my nerd rage somewhere.

I shudder at the future of Batman. Ben Affleck, nooooooooooo... Daredevil... Batman... WHAT NEXT! And, yes, I despise all of the movie Batmen. None are the equal of the actual Batman.

Well, they wanted to use a single machine for both encoding and decoding of messages, so the use of a reflector to channel the signal right back through the rotors strikes me as rather pragmatic.

What bothers me is that they relied on "security through obscurity".

The sheer number of possible settings with 3 (4) rotors of a random configuration, each with adjustable rings, plus a plugboard with a variable number of connections -- that's a metric fuck-ton of permutations. But the rotors had fixed wiring and were limited in number. As soon as the Allies got their hands on a set of rotors, the possible number of settings was reduced radically. And the number of connections on the plugboard was standardized to 10 in '41.

Now, what if they had replaced one of the fixed-wiring rotors with a sort of pluggable rotor disc, a rotor that could be reconfigured on site within a minute? That would have screwed the boys at Bletchley Park, wouldn't it? Instead of 60 combinations for 3 out of 5, you'd have 20*26! (2 out of 5 and one random). Have it reconfigured daily, just like the starting positions, and brute force would have required much more effort.

It would still have been vulnerable, given the reflector issues, the nonsensical guidelines for the plugboard, the need to transmit settings, the vast numbers of codebooks, etc. But the numbers would have been more to their favor.