Talk:1121: Identity

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:40, 17 October 2012 by Hkmaly (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

He could also be bothered by her willingness to give away the password so easily. Anyone who has spent a sufficient amount of time with the character would have an idea of the things he's interested in. The image text supports it a little by saying how anyone he knows would be aware that he acts like that. 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

They could also be using a version of Google Wave or some such IM... It was possible to view realtime what the others were typing on the window. Then Megan would be able to interrupt Cueball easily.

Notably, although the characters appear to be communicating by way of text (whether SMS, or some instant messaging protocol), Megan should not be able to interrupt Cueball. Text-based messages do not typically stream in realtime as they are typed. She wouldn't be able to read his message until he completed it and sent it. -- TheHYPO (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Unless they are using something like the unix talk command, which does stream characters as they are typed. This might make sense since they are conversing about a server password, but talk might also perform proper authentication, although it could likely be spoofed as most early unix programs were not very secure. The characters are not streamed in real time, by the way, because there is no deadline for transmission of the characters. Sending something "as soon as possible" is pretty much the opposite of "real-time" and I think this wiki should make great efforts to be extra geeky about the use of the phrase "real-time" treating it like "real-time operating system" rather than "I use the web so I think the word 'real-time' means that time itself is not fake." Has Randall written a comic about the misuse of the phrase "real-time"? He should. -- Jsbqvb (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I'm going to quibble over your quibbling over semantics for a moment. "Real-time communication" is not simply saying something immediately after another person. Imagine you and I are sitting in plush armchairs in my front parlour, discussing philosophy. You ask me "What is real-time communication?" I look up to the ceiling, as I formulate my response. According to your definition, this conversation has now left real-time, and become a no-deadline-for-transmission delayed communication, because I've failed to respond immediately. Another example, we're sitting in a park outside at a marble chess table. You move your rook. I study the game board before making my own move. Are you going to argue that this is no longer a real-time game because of my delay?
A third example. I sit down in my writing room and write a lengthy letter addressed to you and put it into the mail. My postman picks up the mail later that day. It gets sorted and put onto a truck to your house. The truck drives across state lines to the distribution center near your house. The letter gets put in your postman's sack, and that day on his rounds he delivers it to your postbox. You read it and write your response. Your postman picks it up the next day, it's trucked back to my state and delivered to me 2 days after you wrote it. Is this real-time communication? I'll answer that one for you. No it isn't.
What makes communication real-time, and what doesn't? I don't have a hard-and-fast definition for you. I consider, talking to a person whether face-to-face or over the phone real-time. I consider sending mail and email delayed communication. Instant Messages are real-time if I get an answer within five minutes of when I sent them, same with text messages. So is five minutes a good differentiating line? Here's another example.
We're in grade school, and we're all sitting in a circle playing Telephone. I whisper the message to my neighbor, who whispers it on until it reaches you, at the other end of the circle. The whole game takes perhaps a minute. Is this real-time communication? No, because I'm passing the message to middle-men. But that's how messages travel the Internet, bouncing through routers until they reach you. So, it can't be that there are no middle-men involved.
In conclusion. I think your argument that "somewhat delayed delivery of a response" would be a better phrase instead of "real-time" is fallacious, and pointless. That we need to be cautious of the usage of "real-time communication" is not one of the things I think we need to be worried about. I do think we need to be careful of how we rear the upcoming generations, pay attention to the difference between "loose" and "lose", how to spell "onomatopoeia" and "definitely" correctly, as well as using "literally" accurately, "who" vs. "whom", when to and more importantly when not to dangle prepositions, learning when to use which dashes, avoiding ad hominem arguments, trying to be a little less pedantic with others, and taking some time to slow down and smell the flowers and enjoy the scenery.
--lcarsos (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Moved here from the explanation. lcarsos (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you say something, the sound of your voice is spreading by speed of sound, which is relatively slow. What communication can actually be called real-time by the "no delay" definition? Telepathy? -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that he was sending each sentence separately, and she's responding to one of the ones he already completed. 18:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "NO!" may not be for security but the disappointment of missed opportunity to design a 'cool' identity proof protocol.

While it's true he hasn't yet properly proved his identity, the "NO!" is DEFINITELY the disappointment of missed opportunity to design a 'cool' identity proof protocol. -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)