Wednesday, March 25, 2009

More than he asked for...

I'll be nice and not reveal the name of the person who asked me this in Second Life(tm) today. (chat posted without permission from the other party).

From "A curious resident": Heya jopsy, if your not busy, can you make a script for me, im to lazy to figure it out myself atm. If you can, all i want is it to generate keys starting from NULL_KEY to all z's. Not that hard but i can't think of a way to script it to change all the places of the key, and yea, all keys range from 0 to z each letter.
oh, and it must start at the end of the key and work it's way back to the start (end to index 0)

I want the secret unique name for EVERYTHING in Second Life, and every possible name for content that hasn't yet been created too. Every image/texture, person, group, object, sound clip, ... everything. (I'm guessing he wants this so he browse through other people's content and use it without their permission)

I initially replied with: May I ask what you intend to do with these keys?

Regardless of what he replies with... this is the answer he's about to get:

For starters... The list you're asking for is about 10 billion times larger than necessary. (Digits in keys only go up to F, not to Z)

Since each
digit has 16 possible digits, and there's 32 digits, your list will have 16^32 keys in it, easy math.

Of course, 16^32, is just a simple, non-scary way of saying: 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
(that's more than 340 "Undecillion" keys. I had to look the word up, actually.)

If you have 100 scripts, each generating 100 keys every second... your list will be done in 107,902,830,708,060 BILLION CENTURIES.

On the positive side, after we've left Earth and it's been consumed by our sun after it goes supernova, maybe we'll have technology that will store that much data.

So anyway. You still want that script?

(I could have just said "no", but where's the fun in that.)

P.S. He replied... and is trying to write something so that he obtain a resident's key from their name. (which is actually probably the only partially legit possible use for something like this.) I softened the message slight upon delivery. ;)

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Pillar of Salt

I'm no biblical scholar... but I recognize exaggeration and cover-up when I see it.

The story of Lot in Genesis (wikipedia) is about the nephew of Abraham. Because of quarrels between Abraham's and Lot's shepards, Lot moves his family and business to Zoar (which is soon destroyed along Sodom & Gomorrah and two other cities). Lot persuades angels to spend the night in his house instead of on the street... and when the depraved of the town came to his door to 'meet' (original word sometimes translates as 'rape' apparent) the angels... Lot offers them his daughters instead. The townsfolk weren't interested. Hmm. In thanks, the angels warn Lot the city would be destroyed, and they should flee and not look back. He flees with his two daughters and wife. The wife looks back, turns to pillar of salt. Later his daughters get their father drunk, sleep with him and get pregnant, giving birth to sons. Sons that later become patriarchs of the nations of Moab and Ammon.

Um. Riiiiiiight.

How about this interpretation:

Lot moves into a new town and sets up business pimping out attractive young men and women. Not content with that, he and his hustlers engaged in theft and other illicit activities. Conflict and trouble with the authorities soon follows. Lot's crew sets fire the town and escapes during the chaos. There likely was no wife to turn into a pillar of salt. Lot retires in the mountains with two of his prostitutes. The greedy young hustlers decide to move on to another city, where the cycle of theft and arson continues until they're caught or disband.

And that bit about Lot's daughters' incest fathering the patriarchs of Moab and Ammon? Just mudslinging against neighbor nations.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

In the news

I couldn't watch the whole thing, it was just awful.

California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban - from the Mercury News - in brief, Ken Star (defending prop 8) was slick and articulate.... Christoper Krueger, the senior deputy assistant attorney general (challenging prop 8) was incoherent and acting like he'd never spoke in public before.

Justice Joyce Kennard nailed why they'll likely not decide in favor of the challenge: "opponents of the measure would have the court choose between 'two rights ... the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change the constitution as they see fit"

Which goads me to ask, what the fricking hell do we have justices for if they will not stand up against changes to law and constitution that are UNJUST.

Without the direct involvement of the judicial branch of government, the democratic process is no better than a lynch mob with a paper trail.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Magic and Betrayal

Bear with me as I bring this up... again... to say something a little different.

CA's supreme court is in the process of reviewing the legality of Prop 8... and my mind is drawn back to the topic.

First off, a very minor point, I marvel at the 'magic trick' being pulled by the dogmatic types. They cry out that their religious freedoms are being threatened... and demand censorship of all things gay. Imposing religious oppression is not one of the freedoms enshrined in the constitution last I checked.

The Gung-ho Prop 8 supporters are fighting to preserve their right to pretend that homosexuality is some exotic addictive sinful vice like heroin. The moderates, (people that likely voted for Prop 8 on a whim), are more likely to feel that they just don't want homosexuality paraded about in front of children. (I wouldn't want children seeing heterosexuality in practice either.)

Ask any straight guy what they think of two guys having sex, and they'll probably look disgusted. A reaction not unlike the one you'd get if you asked them what they think of their own aging parents having sex, actually. Funny that.

The cornerstone issue for me is this: Appeasing the homophobes by pretending to be straight is wrong.

Pretending is, at best, a temporary thing. The truth inevitably comes out. When it does, people feel betrayed, lied to, respect and trust severed, and in some cases marriages ruined.) The usual daytime soap drama... but with real lives destroyed instead.

In a world where people talk freely about their wives or husbands... gays remain silent and pretend to be single (if they aren't)... or claim to have opposite-sex partner (if they don't). Lying to friends, family, co-workers puts one constantly at risk of exposure, blackmail, extortion... even attack and retribution.

Not to mention the self-loathing that results in leading a duplicitous life.

The lying and betrayal of trust done by those that feel they must pretend to be normal is (in my strongly held opinion) THE root cause for all the other self-destructive things attributed to the so-called "gay lifestyle".

So, pretending that sexual orientation is "no one's business"... or relying on "Don't ask don't tell" merely makes matters worse, not just for gays but for the people who will some day find out they were lied to.

And... without State and Federal recognition of gay marriage, people will be compelled to lie to be successful in society... and others will continue to have the "Freedom" to blackmail and attack them merely for being different.

Not necessarily the kinds of freedoms our founding fathers had in mind either.