Ask Questions, Give Answers.

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Seeing as all the questions have been taken, Do I have to answer a question before I can ask my own? Wait...no that isn't my question!
Mine is;
Q. If we ever reach the edge of the universe and try to pass through it, will a giant hand gently nudge us the other way and tell us it's not safe for humans yet?

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Q: If there were two people in the woods, and one guy killed the other, how fucked up would that be?

OT: Okay, real question, my desktop has a "Windows not genuine 7601" error message at the bottom right corner of the screen. I followed this youtube video's steps and got rid of it. Now I can't log on my desktop and it keeps saying "The User Profile Service service failed the login. User profile cannot be loaded." Did Microsoft brick my desktop? And what can I do to fix it?

Look into something called winlogon... or winlogin I cannot.recall exactly

 

[maninahat]

A Thread which you can ask anything you like and also help with other questions you can answer.
I know there is a Suggestion/Advice Section, but I want a more simple, light version.
Simple Qestions, Simple Answers.

So my Question I have to open this Thread is:

Q: Why all the Assassin Creed's protagonists wear hoods [except one I think]? The hoods play a role in the game?

A: Within the story, the hoods are part of a uniform in an extremely traditional society. Outside the game, the devs think the hoods are too iconic for the series to stop using, along with the hidden blades, hawk theme and triangular clothes.

Q: Is under cooked pork anywhere near as dangerous as people say?

 

[Jadak]

I lack the knowledge to answer any of the questions posed, but...

Q: Is there any biological/evolutionary/whatever reason for homosexuality to exist in humans? [footnote]Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course. I'm just curious if someone who knows SCIENCE could explain.[/footnote]

A: To add to what the other guy said, just as importantly in evolution, perhaps more so, it not having a reason to not exist.

In other words, even if one were to argue that there is zero 'evolutionary purpose', that being gay only detrimental, it hardly matters unless all of an individuals children are gay (and don't have kids), thus halting that genetic line.

An overly simplified version: If you have 4 kids, and 1 is gay, you could argue that you carry a gene that gives a 1/4 chance of gayness. So, now maybe your other 3 kids also have the gene with that 25% chance which they will pass on to their kids. Even if one generation has fewer kids, that gene is still going to get passed on and will continue to do so as long you don't get an unlucky generation where there'd only gay kids, then it's game over, but since that'd just one branch on a vast family tree, the gene still carries on elsewhere.

So, all evolution really says about being gay, or anything else that doesn't seem to make logical sense, is that it didn't impede the parents ability to pass on the genes some other way (other kids). Plenty of theories on how it could be helpful, like how having extra gay male adult provides a better protector/child ratio, but even that isn't necessary. Doesn't have to be good, just has to not kill the bloodline.

Also, need to remember that the whole 'rape is bad' concept is not, I don't think, super relevant to most animals, and even modern humans can be a bit iffy on the subject depending on culture. Point being, everything else aside, it's a bit harder to breed something out when it only applies to half the population, I doubt being a gay woman pre-human provided the same assurances of cock avoidance that it might/should today.

In theory, if you found every gay person, and prevented both them and all their siblings from having children, and did that without fail for even just a few generations, I wouldn't be surprised if you saw an end to the trait. But, it seems to be common enough that that probably covers the entire population, so it is what it is.

 

[LetalisK]

Q: Would you rather live in an adjacent suburb of Denver, Seattle, or Portland? Basically, live outside the city and drive in for work/fun/etc. I'm currently wrestling with this question.

For me, I'd pick Denver. State's getting a nice revenue boost from the legal weed. Plus Denver's the cheapest of the three options (9% lower living costs than Portland, 34% cheaper than Seattle). Lower cost of living is always a plus.

To be fair, Oregon and Washington have also legalized recreational weed. I definitely understand the cost of living thing as I've been looking at rent prices in all three and Seattle is just...holy shit. My big issue is I love the Pacific Northwest and I enjoy rain while hating snow. Overall though, Denver is cheaper to live in(I currently live in one of its suburbs) and is much easier for me to get the job I want. Portland has my favorite climate and decent cost of living relatively speaking, but it's also the hardest to get the job I want there. Seattle is a bit of a pain to get my job, but it's definitely doable and has the best urban core, though the cost of living is nuts even for the suburbs. Okay, another question!

Q: Is living in a better climate(for me that means almost no snow and more rain, which I like) worth pursuing a career in another city at significant personal cost in both time and money to get established? Not to imply I think Denver is a bad climate. It's good, just not great(like Portland and Seattle is to me). To give an idea of what I'm looking for, if I could take Denver's ease of getting my job and cost of living, mash it with Seattle's urban core, and then combine that with Portland's climate and environment, that would be my perfect city.

The fact that I am both a Trailblazers and Seahawks fan may also be influencing my motivations, which I know is sad.

 

[EvilRoy]

Q: Is living in a better climate(for me that means almost no snow and more rain, which I like) worth pursuing a career in another city at significant personal cost in both time and money to get established? Not to imply I think Denver is a bad climate. It's good, just not great(like Portland and Seattle is to me).

The fact that I am both a Trailblazers and Seahawks fan may also be influencing my motivations, which I know is sad.

A: The answer to that one depends more on how much you don't want to be where you are, rather than how much you do want to be somewhere else. Sounds weird I know, but think of it this way: If I had to give nothing up to do so, I would move to the tropics in an instant. However, I have to give stuff up to do it because that's how life is. Knowing that, the question becomes "is living in the tropics all year round and losing my pay, job and access to friends worth more than putting up with where I am, not losing that stuff, and taking two weeks of vacation every year". For me, the answer is that more money and time means more and better vacations long run. It would be nice to not have to deal with where I am, but it is better for me to be able to leave for a while each year to wherever I want.

But that answer only works for me because I don't hate where I am. There are just better places than it. For you, maybe you hate the shit out of Denver and anywhere else would be better, in which case I say yes, do move, and make sure you move to a place you won't want to leave. Because if you are going to move to escape a place you don't like, then you ought to make it count.

Q: Online dating: Heinous waste of time, path to true love, or harmless passtime? Recently I was legit cyberstalked by a woman who was not necessarily a horrible person, just not a very good one. One date later and she chose to block me which for the first time in my life was a relief rather than a dissapointment. It has had me question this whole process, especially considering if she had turned out to be legit crazy, then that's my linkdin, email, phone and dating profile she new about.

 

[LetalisK]

Q: Is living in a better climate(for me that means almost no snow and more rain, which I like) worth pursuing a career in another city at significant personal cost in both time and money to get established? Not to imply I think Denver is a bad climate. It's good, just not great(like Portland and Seattle is to me).

The fact that I am both a Trailblazers and Seahawks fan may also be influencing my motivations, which I know is sad.

A: The answer to that one depends more on how much you don't want to be where you are, rather than how much you do want to be somewhere else. Sounds weird I know, but think of it this way: If I had to give nothing up to do so, I would move to the tropics in an instant. However, I have to give stuff up to do it because that's how life is. Knowing that, the question becomes "is living in the tropics all year round and losing my pay, job and access to friends worth more than putting up with where I am, not losing that stuff, and taking two weeks of vacation every year". For me, the answer is that more money and time means more and better vacations long run. It would be nice to not have to deal with where I am, but it is better for me to be able to leave for a while each year to wherever I want.

But that answer only works for me because I don't hate where I am. There are just better places than it. For you, maybe you hate the shit out of Denver and anywhere else would be better, in which case I say yes, do move, and make sure you move to a place you won't want to leave. Because if you are going to move to escape a place you don't like, then you ought to make it count.

Q: Online dating: Heinous waste of time, path to true love, or harmless passtime? Recently I was legit cyberstalked by a woman who was not necessarily a horrible person, just not a very good one. One date later and she chose to block me which for the first time in my life was a relief rather than a dissapointment. It has had me question this whole process, especially considering if she had turned out to be legit crazy, then that's my linkdin, email, phone and dating profile she new about.

A: Keep at it. There are crazies no matter which method you choose. Online dating just allows you to cast the widest net possible and then you can determine from there who is worth it.

 

[SweetShark]

Q: Is this me or do I think the characters you select in Splatoon look like a bunch of Hipsters? Maybe because they know they are in to a different kind of Shooter game?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Seeing as all the questions have been taken, Do I have to answer a question before I can ask my own? Wait...no that isn't my question!
Mine is;
Q. If we ever reach the edge of the universe and try to pass through it, will a giant hand gently nudge us the other way and tell us it's not safe for humans yet?

The short answer is that you can't, even in principle, reach even a theoretical edge of the universe. You could, if you could accelerate VERY quickly, come close to the Cosmological Event Horizon.

The long answer is that there is no evidence that the universe has an edge. It may well be that the geometry of spacetime does not support something like an edge, and that an attempt to reach an edge would be like an ant on a rubber ball trying to find an "edge". It would not be a meaningful search, from the ant's perspective.

It is also possible that the universe is infinite in extent, or that it DOES have clearly defined edges. The former isn't interesting for this question, but the second IS. You may hear a lot about "the edge of the universe" in pop science, but what you're probably hearing is, "The edge of The OBSERVABLE Universe". That's not a function of the quality of our instruments however, as many assume.

The observable universe (TOU) is defined by a combination of factors: The speed of light in a vacuum (c) and galactic recession velocity (GRV). That last one... remember that the universe is constantly expanding, right? Well, that means that SPACE is expanding, there is MORE and MORE of it at all points. That includes the space between galaxies. Now, light can't exceed 'c' in its own frame of reference (like a sprinter who can't run faster than 18mph), BUT if that frame is ALSO accelerating (the sprinter is on a platform on a moving train) then it can exceed 'c'.

What that means, is that beyond a certain point (the Cosmological Event Horizon) determined by your present position in the universe, you can NEVER observe it... never reach it. The light from beyond that point will never reach you, even if you could travel at 'c' to meet it. SOMEONE would need to exceed 'c' to meet.

So... maybe there is an edge? Maybe not? Unless 'c' isn't a limit after all, it's not really a human concern.

TL;DR No, we can't, but not because of any special intervention (literally or figuratively)

Such an interesting and well worded reply. More than I was ever expecting. The mysteries of our entire existence can never be fully understood with our limited perception of space and time. I fear that attempting to percieve beyond our limits would destroy our alleged sanity. Sanity in the sense of being able to function in human society at least. We would need to have entirely different brains. Whether that is even possible, I do not know. I would imagine that, naturally, we would have to evolve that way. But to do so would require having to survive generations of being subjected to the beyond. Oh dear I'm rambling. Sorry, not enough coffee yet.

 

[SweetShark]

Seeing as all the questions have been taken, Do I have to answer a question before I can ask my own? Wait...no that isn't my question!
Mine is;
Q. If we ever reach the edge of the universe and try to pass through it, will a giant hand gently nudge us the other way and tell us it's not safe for humans yet?

The short answer is that you can't, even in principle, reach even a theoretical edge of the universe. You could, if you could accelerate VERY quickly, come close to the Cosmological Event Horizon.

The long answer is that there is no evidence that the universe has an edge. It may well be that the geometry of spacetime does not support something like an edge, and that an attempt to reach an edge would be like an ant on a rubber ball trying to find an "edge". It would not be a meaningful search, from the ant's perspective.

It is also possible that the universe is infinite in extent, or that it DOES have clearly defined edges. The former isn't interesting for this question, but the second IS. You may hear a lot about "the edge of the universe" in pop science, but what you're probably hearing is, "The edge of The OBSERVABLE Universe". That's not a function of the quality of our instruments however, as many assume.

The observable universe (TOU) is defined by a combination of factors: The speed of light in a vacuum (c) and galactic recession velocity (GRV). That last one... remember that the universe is constantly expanding, right? Well, that means that SPACE is expanding, there is MORE and MORE of it at all points. That includes the space between galaxies. Now, light can't exceed 'c' in its own frame of reference (like a sprinter who can't run faster than 18mph), BUT if that frame is ALSO accelerating (the sprinter is on a platform on a moving train) then it can exceed 'c'.

What that means, is that beyond a certain point (the Cosmological Event Horizon) determined by your present position in the universe, you can NEVER observe it... never reach it. The light from beyond that point will never reach you, even if you could travel at 'c' to meet it. SOMEONE would need to exceed 'c' to meet.

So... maybe there is an edge? Maybe not? Unless 'c' isn't a limit after all, it's not really a human concern.

TL;DR No, we can't, but not because of any special intervention (literally or figuratively)

Such an interesting and well worded reply. More than I was ever expecting. The mysteries of our entire existence can never be fully understood with our limited perception of space and time. I fear that attempting to percieve beyond our limits would destroy our alleged sanity. Sanity in the sense of being able to function in human society at least. We would need to have entirely different brains. Whether that is even possible, I do not know. I would imagine that, naturally, we would have to evolve that way. But to do so would require having to survive generations of being subjected to the beyond. Oh dear I'm rambling. Sorry, not enough coffee yet.

Don't worry about it. Just make sure you won't become a follower of Azathoth in the future.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Don't worry about it. Just make sure you won't become a follower of Azathoth in the future.

I don't know, I think it's probably reasonable to assume that animals which evolved to cope with a very narrow experience (Earth) would not fare well beyond it. I mean, we don't do that well with trips to the Moon, never mind journeys to whole new physics. I think that yeah, it probably would do our sanity no good at all.

Also what SweetShark said! lol

The future? Oh that isn't something you need to worry about anymore. *quietly hides goat heads under human skin blanket* Now we await...something.

 

[rosac]

Q. If we ever reach the edge of the universe and try to pass through it, will a giant hand gently nudge us the other way and tell us it's not safe for humans yet?

Nope, the intergalactic GTA police will chase you back into the area because we haven't unlocked it yet.

Q: What's your favourite Motown/Motown style song song? Mine is Jackie Wilsons higher and higher, or it takes two

 

[das_n00b]

Q: What's your favourite Motown/Motown style song song? Mine is Jackie Wilsons higher and higher, or it takes two

A: Mine right now is the temptations - ain't too proud to beg.

Q: anyone know if I can find some drivers/linux distro to stream my amd radeon r7 200 series to raspberry pi b+?

 

[SweetShark]

Q: Shall we fear about the fact Nintedo hire a man with the name Doug BOWSER as Vice President?

Spoiler

We are f*cked

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Don't worry about it. Just make sure you won't become a follower of Azathoth in the future.

I don't know, I think it's probably reasonable to assume that animals which evolved to cope with a very narrow experience (Earth) would not fare well beyond it. I mean, we don't do that well with trips to the Moon, never mind journeys to whole new physics. I think that yeah, it probably would do our sanity no good at all.

Also what SweetShark said! lol

The future? Oh that isn't something you need to worry about anymore. *quietly hides goat heads under human skin blanket* Now we await...something.

lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=377Qjg0Fxog

Haha! That was unique and midly...educational. Those pig entrails, I always forget to do the pig entrails!

 

[FPLOON]

Q: Shall we fear about the fact Nintedo hire a man with the name Doug BOWSER as Vice President?

Spoiler

We are f*cked

I'll answer that question with another question: Is it so wrong that this could lead to a [true] stand-alone Bowser game?

 

[SweetShark]

Q: Shall we fear about the fact Nintedo hire a man with the name Doug BOWSER as Vice President?

Spoiler

We are f*cked

I'll answer that question with another question: Is it so wrong that this could lead to a [true] stand-alone Bowser game?

Maybe. A game which Bowser kidnap other princesses will be delightful.
Plus there is already game which take this idea:

Waiting this game and I am hype as.....no, I have normal hype.

 

[SweetShark]

Q: I have a strange question. I just discover a Artist with the name Mazeran. He is interested because the design he use is VERY VERY similar of the artist Kazuma Kaneko, Creature Desighner of Shin Megami Tensei games.
Here are some very good examples:

Spoiler

Right now I now he is the Creature designer for the game Blue Dragon Island, Android/Ios game.
However it appear he done a lot more things.
Can you help me to see what else he done?

 

[SweetShark]

Q: Is the game "Manhunt" banned from Greece? I am trying to buy it with Paypal in Humble Store and I can't.

 

[King Monarch]

Q The best tasteing type of fish?