/lit/ - Literature

>>4983785
>I was hanging onto the rock for dear life.
>I looked down.
>it was kind of a long fall, Which caused me to get scared of falling.
>By the way I was holding onto the rock I could fall any time now.

>>4130054
>Yeah, I, like, ripped its face off. Then I hd an idea, cool cool cool cool cool.

I like killing people because it is so much fun it is more fun than killing wild game in the forrest because man is the most dangeroue anamal of all to kill something gives me the most thrilling experience it is even better than getting your rocks off with a girl the best part of it is thae when I die I will be reborn in paradice and thei have killed will become my slaves I will not give you my name because you will try to sloi down or atop my collectiog of slaves for my afterlife ebeorietemethhpiti

Done. Now where's my fame and fortune?

>mfw I never gave two shits about the SAT
>mfw I never studied for the SAT
>mfw I can't even remember what my score was
>mfw I can't even differentiate the SAT from the ACT and all the other state and nation-wide acronym tests I took
>mfw the test has never affected my life in any way, shape, or form
>mfw I don't even know why we took those pointless tests in the first place

>>1429585
Hey. Hey Guy.

Digital data does not decay. It's either there, or it's completely lost, under usual circumstances (a harddisk with standard error correction). If you're taking averages, you might get to the mentioned 12kbps/year degradation. Suppose all your MP3s are at 256kbps, and a harddisk has a 5% failure rate per year. Then, on average, you would lose about 12kbps of data per year. But it's far from a degradation over time - you would just be losing 5% of all your mp3s each year, but all the remaining mp3s are still at 100% of their original quality. Proper RAID setups would almost completely eliminate the chance loss of data, and would almost certainly allow you to retain all your mp3s, unchanged (and thus without decay) over decennia. Unilynx (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2010_August_24

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/451369/why-flac-is-better

Fuck you. Stop being a dick.

I think you have me mistaken for /tv/

>Good authors will intentionally put symbolism in their work, because they expect their audience to be smart enough to pick up on it.
>Not all of that symbolism is intentional.
>"Unintentional symbolism" is still worth rooting out of literature, it's what Carl Jung would have wanted.