Hang Out and Post

[Unstream]

You guys make it sound like religion and science can't go hand-in-hand.

 

Anyway, the whole thing about the world's smartest person is extremely subjective. There are a ton of contenders, and Stephen Hawkings is only one of them. There's people like Dr. Grigori Perelman, who's solved math problems nobody else could, and Marilyn vos Savant, who has the highest recorded IQ. In fact, Hawkings even stated that he felt embarrassed by the fact that he was called the smartest man in the world.

[Divya Bean]

I doubt that there is a smartest person in the world because (I know this sounds cheesy) but there are a lot of different kinds of smart, as in different subjects not physical, musical, etc. There might possibly be a person who is the best at math or a person who is the best at science...but only possibly.

[jumpingbeans]

I know you guys are trying to debate, but everybody knows the smartest person is:

 

Me

 

[Tyler.]

I am religious, but I don't let these things worry me

[-Ryan]

Now that the whole religion and science topic is going, i'm curious abou what everyone's opinions on 2012 are.

[jumpingbeans]

I really don't have an opinion. I don't care either way (well, actually, I'd care if the wolrd ended, but you know what I mean)

[CAV of Gang Green]

An Astronomer, a New Yorker...

what else?

 

I already am a New Yorker. So I want to be an Astronomer.

[Unstream]

I don't think there's any real evidence backing up the claim. The Aztec or Mayan or whatever calendar they say predicts the end of the world came up with the date first, so it doesn't count as evidence.

[Wembly]

The year 2012: Y2K's younger sibling that was jealous of all the attention Y2K got so is now trying to prove its relevance. It will not. It will fall into the annals of infamous failure.

[Divya Bean]

I dont think that there is any evidence to back up the end of the world in 2012. I (kinda) understand the world ending in 2000, because the dates in computers would be 01/01/00 which would be something in binary which could cause all of the computers to crash... Thats what my Tech Ed teacher told me.

[Spritzie]

The year 2012: Y2K's younger sibling that was jealous of all the attention Y2K got so is now trying to prove its relevance. It will not. It will fall into the annals of infamous failure.

I love this! Your reply has been quoted. It was awesome. :D I agree with you.

[Wembly]

Haha, I'm glad you enjoyed it too because I was wondering if I found myself entirely too amusing once again.

[Spritzie]

No, not at all. I loved it. It was the perfect explanation for it. :laughingsmiley:

[CAV of Gang Green]

The year 2012: Y2K's younger sibling that was jealous of all the attention Y2K got so is now trying to prove its relevance. It will not. It will fall into the annals of infamous failure.

 

That's a nice and thoughtful statement. But I find 2012 as Y2K's distant cousin.

 

While Y2K (2000) wanted to destroy technology, 2012 wants to end a calender and make everything just go poof.

[Guest Drr]

Whoa what happened?! I'm so confused. Who recognizes me? :whistle:

[antiaircraft]

*waves* Hiya! :)

 

I'm rather amused at the amount of hype that can be generated over a simple, easily (if not simply) fixed bug in date systems. Heck, most UNIX-like systems are using 64-bit date storage already, so we won't even have the 2038 problem to bother about soon enough.

[livvy]

And I don't believe in ghosts either. They don't make sense. I mean, according to physics, since they don't have mass, they shouldn't be able to apply any force whatsoever. The theory of a poltergeist is very flawed.

:O ...*hugs Will* This was by far more reassuring than any religious "they don't exist" assurances.

 

And Wemb, I agree. That was a perfect description. :laughingsmiley:

[jumpingbeans]

*waves* Hiya! :)

 

I'm rather amused at the amount of hype that can be generated over a simple, easily (if not simply) fixed bug in date systems. Heck, most UNIX-like systems are using 64-bit date storage already, so we won't even have the 2038 problem to bother about soon enough.

Theo, I've got a question for you: Can you say that in English?

Also, if 2012 does exist... :crying: ...Goodbye...

[antiaircraft]

The year 2038 problem is basically the equivalent of Y2K on UNIX-like systems (Linux included). On systems which used a signed 32-bit integer to store dates, the furthest date in the future that can be represented is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038. Add one second to that, and you'll wrap back around to sometime in 1901. Of course, this isn't particularly difficult to fix (although perhaps a little complicated if you want to consider backwards-compatibility). Most Linux systems I've used are already using 64-bit date storage anyway, so they won't really have to bother about the problem (although they will run into it again on Sunday, 4 December 292,277,026,596).

[Divya Bean]

RIG, I read that really fast. Bad idea. x_x

[jumpingbeans]

I read it. Even worse idea.

I made out that in 2038 the computers will go down....I think...

[antiaircraft]

tl;dr version:

 

Computers store dates in specific formats. Some dates are too big to store in these formats. When a date that is too big is used, funny stuff happens. It's not hard to solve this by using bigger formats.

[jumpingbeans]

Cool. So if they kept upping the base, there'd never be any problem?

[antiaircraft]

Yep. The 2038 problem can be averted simply by upping the storage base to 64-bit (which is largely the standard now). That'll get rid of the problem for the next 292,277,024,586 years. :)

[CAV of Gang Green]

Also, if 2012 does exist... :crying: ...Goodbye...

 

If 2012 does happen, it would happen on my little brother's birthday (December 21st).

 

Happy birthday bro! The end of the world is God's present for you! If there is a god....