Gunnerkrigg Court

>Computer tomb

Only slightly ominous.

So she can build robots AND supercomputers? Her IQ is increasing as the story goes on?

>With this baby I can time travel, warp reality, and maybe even play Crysis on medium settings!

Why's the ginger the protagonist again? Kate is helping more people and doing far more impressive shit with her gadgets than miss "I can turn my hair into fire"

Nice rig, Kat, now you'll be able to play pubg at 24 fps!

Assuming Kat is actually building a computer entirely from scratch, what would she call her OS?

Because it becomes difficult to tell a story once your protagonist ascends to godhood.

The first thing that popped into my head when I read this page.

Robot 2

>So she can build robots AND supercomputers? Her IQ is increasing as the story goes on?

She's just ordering pieces off newegg, it's not a big deal. She wants a decent gaming build that'll be able to play next year's games on medium.

Watch this be the reason Zimmy's all fucked up or whatever else that's happened in the comic because it becomes so powerful it affects the past

I'm sorry, Kat, but I can't let you do that.

Nobody wants to mention that all the robots are just ceremoniously lined up on the edge of the room, expecting? That's kinda scary, Kat

Those are the old, ceremonial looking models, right? They're probably not even turned on.

So she's deleting his current ether-based consciousness and ports him to PC?

Divine

>gunnershit fail

Phew, almost looked like Renard was becoming relevant again for a minute there. Crisis averted.

These monitors are not adjusted to proper eye level height.
She'll get a stiff neck and bad posture from working on this machine, which is a serious issue! Especially since she's still young, this can lead to many problems very fast if she doesn't fix it! I can attest to that.
If Anthony could see this ...

Not really, it's been implied that she has an unnatural power to tell how different parts work together.
See: That page where she looks at the little pigeon's wing, and the one where she and Annie are trying to meditate but she starts thinking about an air vent thingie.

It's never been mentioned, so i'm guessing she just hasn't thought of it as something out of the ordinary

>Robot is no longer etherStation3 exclusive

Was man meant to have such power?

Can the human eye even distinguish between medium, and the hypothetical high quality setting of Crysis?

...

EtherStation always has the best exclusives until Microsat just throws cash around to make shady exclusivity deals.

That actually looks kinda dope, desu.
A dedicated life bar display is a great idea!

But hey, Beast Trapper is coming back home, finally!
I bet Kat is excited.

>'t b h' turned into 'desu'
I'll never understand this gay filter. It makes no sense.

Nah she's just trying to play PUBG at 30 fps

if anything her intelligence has gotten less exaggerated, considering she built an anti-gravity device in chapter 5 or whatever as a peripheral to her stupid fucking protein crystals

>an unnatural power to tell how different parts work together.
>deducting how a wing and a ventilator are constructed are an "unnatural power"
t. IQ 59

The monitors are not for her, as she'll siply connect her consciousness to the computer

>unnatural power to tell how different parts work together

That's how I like my comic book tech geniuses - not actual real world geniuses, since real-life intelligence is far more complicated and nuanced and isn't something to be toyed with as some random-ass superpower - no tony stark shit

...

It was less gay than the niggerspeak they replaced, senpai.

More like computer womb, amirite?

This comic is getting increasingly gay as time progresses. Are we really spending time on how Kat is building a cock into a robot so it can fuck its fat, black "lover"?

What's gay about that though

Holy shit that perspective in the final panel is bad

also

>but can it run Crysis

>but can it run Crysis?
It's not 2010 anymore guys, even my cheapo laptop can run it

Do you think she put in a GeForce or Radeon?

Stop making me feel old, im only 28.

I should probably upgrade my old wreck, but no new games that caught my eye actually require it, the tech marches on, the Vidya does not.

Both, she is too much of a optimizer to accept the limitations of sticking to either 100% and is probably doing a UNLIMITED BUDGET build and uses the GPU not being used for whatever task she is doing for Bitcoin mining until it is time to use it.

Radeon, clearly.
Katalyst.

I think we can conclusively say, PC Gaming has lost track of the 'gaming' aspect of it.
This is just ridiculous.

Just get a console. Have fun. This whole arms race PC gaming has become will only make you miserable.

How fucking banal.

Kat may as well announce she is going to make net neutrality a new thing of the future.

I WANT TO PLANY MY FERTILE SEED INSIDE ANNIE'S GARDEN.

Kat would never do something stupid like that. She's perfect. She knows net neutrality would only benefit large monopolies and halt progress and remove options from customers.
Kat's all about that scientific progress.

>She knows net neutrality would only benefit large monopolies
please tell me you are being ironic.

>Pro net neutrality
>on supposedly 'woke' 'right-wing' Sup Forums
I'm disappoint.
I support the people's right to refuse service.
If you perform any service job you will know that it is an absolutely elementary right in capitalism and you would be a hypocrite to deny ISPs that right.
You would be for government control.
How is a smaller ISP supposed to find its footing if they don't even have the right to freely set their prices?
Had net neutrality been left unchallenged, no new ISPs would be able to materialize.
That's monopolies in the making.

Because a majority of areas in the US are ruled by a single ISP and the rest by companies that are practically joined at the hip.

There would be no competition. Just you having big chunks of your internet throttled or outright blocked unless you pay more money. Your options would be to take it or live your life offline.

Because a majority of areas in the US are ruled by a single ISP and the rest by companies that are practically joined at the hip. They've long cemented their place with regulations that prevent anybody else from laying lines down, as exampled by Google's attempt.

There would be no competition. Just you having big chunks of your internet throttled or outright blocked unless you pay more money. Your options would be to take it or live your life offline.

Oh blow it out your ass

>There's too much regulation, so how does one more hurt?

To be fair, you have to very high IQ to understand Gunnerkrigg Court

When it's a regulation to keep freedom of information as a right. Your argument that companies should be free to use it as marketing is completely absorb.

That is not a right.
You have the right to access all information, but you don't have the right to force anyone to give you access to information.
Net neutrality doesn't protect anyone's rights, it simply removes rights of ISPs.

>>on supposedly 'woke' 'right-wing' Sup Forums
Majority of Sup Forums is pro-net neutrality.

And wanting to give Big corporations that are already monoplies even more power than they already are in the name of "freedom" is the epitome of stupidity.

it's net neutrality that allow small business to become big. With ISPs being given the power of who get to have fast access and who doesn't, we are in a free-market killing situation.
It doesn't hurt, there quite on the contrary, it helps. Your mistake is to think that only the government can kill the free market, while neglecting to consider that corporations whose free market might actually hurt their business might also act against the free market.

Stop thinking of capitalism as a religion and use critical thinking.

Internet's not a service, it's a utility. A utility has a responsibility to provide consistent, democratized access.

>Net neutrality doesn't protect anyone's rights, it simply removes rights of ISPs.
It remove the right from ISs from deciding which online business gt fast access and doesn't.

also, ISPs, before the Net Neturality of 2015, have been found out to literally block access to certain business, not just slow it down.

And why should companies have rights to deny the rights of people? You do realise they're actively doing that, right?

would Goddess Kat be for or against net neutrality

I don't think of it as a religion, I'm simply not a hypocrite.
I am for the right to refuse service for myself, so I don't want it regulated for anyone else, either.
The economic effects of that don't matter to me. I'd wager they are almost nonexistent anyway, given that nothing much changed in the couple years we did have net neutrality.
I simply cannot accept net neutrality on the principle of the right to refuse service alone.

How so?

Against.

>I am for the right to refuse service for myself, so I don't want it regulated for anyone else, either.
There are certain service that are to be considered to be accessible to everyone, like firemen.

Internet is one of those things. It's not about being hypocrite, it's about being smart. When you want to make a society that is fair game to everyone, some ground rules are needed. And there is no reason to support something that hurt most people.

Again, the right to refuse only works in a system where there's alternatives. Again, the big companies in the US have made sure that NOBODY will ever challenge them as an alternative.

So when you only have one water supply and somebody plans to piss in it, you're obviously going to prevent that happening. Simply saying you're okay with pisswater or death by thirst is just daft.

For, because she's neither a corporate shill nor a retarded Sup Forumsack.

'Having firemen' isn't a human right.
Neither is access to the internet.

She would be for.
is an utter morron.

Only people who enjoy shooting themselves in the foot and ISPs owner are against Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is what favor the msot the emergences of new businesses and ensure that people can keep having acess to everything on the internet without being abused by oligopolies.

I think for the sake of my sanity, I'm just going to say you're being a complete tool simply to bait.

I hope your apartment catches on fire tomorrow then user

You can choose not to drink the piss water. As long as the pisser owns that water there's nothing that should stop him of pissing in it. If you drink it it's your choice. You have all kinds of options to get your water elsewhere. You could move away, you could import water, you could buy your own water no one is allowed to piss in and distribute that pissless water to the parched-per-piss populous.

But making sure fireman can rapidly act and come to your house if you need them is sure better than them not being able to.

And being able to access to all website at the same speed is better than not being able to.

"it's not a human right" isn't an argument.

Making sure a powerful group or corporation will not abuse of its power is a not "an human right", but it's sure as hell needed if you do not want to be treated as shit.

I'd rather be treated like shit than treat everyone else like shit.
It's their constitutional right. I can't step on that. Period.

>Net neutrality arguments

Her stance on it is a Moot point since Kat is a brit and is already fucked regardless of how it resolves for the United Burgers, she is probably already on ToR and using 5000 VPNs and using a neighbors unprotected Wi-fi.

Kat would never steal wi-fi!

>You can choose not to drink the piss water.
And die of dehydration. that's not a choice.
>As long as the pisser owns that water there's nothing that should stop him of pissing in it.
Yes, there is, sanitary rules and regulation. The guy can literally be put in jail for selling bad water.
>if you drink it it's your choice.
Not a choice if there isn't alternative.
>You have all kinds of options to get your water elsewhere.
that's the point, we are in a scenario where there is only one person who can provide water.
>You have all kinds of options to get your water elsewhere. You could move away, you could import water, you could buy your own water no one is allowed to piss in and distribute that pissless water to the parched-per-piss populous.
All options that doesn't apply to ISPs becaause they are an oligopoly. Hence why they need regulation.

the fact of the matter is, they have already abused their power, hence proved they need to be regulated.

When there are service that play a vital role, regulation is needed.

A good example of unregulated power is the making of insulin: it's one of the cheapest drug to produce but because it has "high value" (you can literally die if you don't have it), it is sold at an insane price to make huge margin. People who lose their insurance literally die because they can't afford insulin in the US. everywhere else, it's super cheap to get.

>I'd rather be treated like shit than treat everyone else like shit.
You whole point is flawed in thinking that it's either one or the other. MAking sure everyone has a correct coverage doesn't mean everyone is treated like shit, quite the opposite.

>It's their constitutional right. I can't step on that. Period.
Except you have no idea what constitutional rights is about and use that word where it does not apply there.

It isn't stealing user, if they didn't want her downloading 3TB of birdporn and cap their datalimit they wouldn't have left it unlocked.

>I'd rather be treated like shit than treat everyone else like shit.
>everyone getting good protection from firemen means everyone is treated like shit
that's not how logic work.

that's the vaguest justification I've heard in a long time.

>Yes, there is, sanitary rules and regulation. The guy can literally be put in jail for selling bad water.
I'm against most consumer protection. As long as he isn't selling it under false pretense why shouldn't it be allowed?
>A good example of unregulated power is the making of insulin
Make your own insulin for cheaper if it's so easy. I don't think I should have the right to force companies to sell me their product at the price of my choice.
FORCING firemen to go into a burning building?
Sounds pretty shit to me.
I'm lucky I don't live in North Korea like you seem to be doing. I hope you can get out of there soon.

>cap their datalimit
I thought you knew she didn't live in the USA.

Noble.
I can't say I wouldn't do the same.

Well, you want something more precise?

Before 2015, ISPs were caught several committing throttling and filtering and forcing online service to give them more money in exchange of giving them the same speed. It's literally an abuse of a monopolist position.

The Net Neutrality put a stop at those kind of activities.

Look, it isn't Kats fault her neighbor picked a shitty ISP and are getting scammed, she is even trying to get em to change by highlighting how impractical caps are.

>I'm against most consumer protection. As long as he isn't selling it under false pretense why shouldn't it be allowed?
Because he is the only supplier.
>Make your own insulin for cheaper if it's so easy.
Starting a new drug company form scrtch is almost impossible and the other will do everything they can to kill your business.
>don't think I should have the right to force companies to sell me their product at the price of my choice.
Yes, you have this kind of right if your life is a stake and it's actually easy for them to do it.
>FORCING firemen to go into a burning building?
No forcing the city to have instalation good enough to cover everyone. and gauantee the same protection.
>I'm lucky I don't live in North Korea like you seem to be doing. I hope you can get out of there soon.
North korea baiscally fuck any peple who isn't part of the close governemnt and provide shit service and deprie them of their rights. you know nothiong about politic.

Kat is great.

>Net Neutrality put a stop at those kind of activities
You mean contracts?
You were just describing how deals work.

>You mean contracts?
I mean, unilateral change of term of service that can't be get around because there is only one service provider, which is a clear abuse of power.

A contract is only valid if both party are on equal footing, a requirement that is part of what a free market need to work properly.

>No forcing the city to have instalation good enough to cover everyone.
See, finally we can agree on something. This is a rightful and good use of Tax money. I'm super against what you said here, since you implied this should be forced, but if you reword it slightly ...
>A city providing installation good enough to cover everyone.
That sounds good. That's something I can get behind. Without your weaselwords 'forcing' and 'guarantee' that almost doesn't sound terrible.
I'm for laws protecting customers from monopolies. One of the few customer protection laws I agree with. The problem is that there aren't monopolies in most of the US. You snuck in this buzzword 'oligopoly', but without proof that there is a monopoly I'm afraid a buzzword's just a buzzword.

>I'm against most consumer protection. As long as he isn't selling it under false pretense why shouldn't it be allowed?

It's always sold under false pretence though. There's no end of that in food produce to this day and it's the same with the internet. Like ISPs enabling higher traffic on bandwidth checker websites, so customers think they have higher speed internet than they actually have.

>See, finally we can agree on something. This is a rightful and good use of Tax money. I'm super against what you said here, since you implied this should be forced, but if you reword it slightly .
Of course it should be forced. Everyone in the city should be guaranteed protection from firemen.
>Without your weaselwords 'forcing' and 'guarantee' that almost doesn't sound terrible.
If the city doens't provide protection for all its inhabitant, then it's failing hard at its job.
>I'm for laws protecting customers from monopolies.
Which is exactly what Net neutrality does.
>The problem is that there aren't monopolies in most of the US.
There is ISPs monopolies at state level
>You snuck in this buzzword 'oligopoly', but without proof that there is a monopoly I'm afraid a buzzword's just a buzzword.
It's literally there and confirmed by everyone. ISPs are monoply on the state level and abused of their position before 2015.

>I'm for laws protecting customers from monopolies.
>Which is exactly what Net neutrality does.
No. It's not and this is the end of the argument for me.
You keep trying to change the facts and sneaking in authoritarian ideas.

>No. It's not and this is the end of the argument for me.
But it is. ISPS are in a monoply position in most state, that means they need to be kept in check.

throttling websites and filtering is something they can get away with precisely because they are in a monopoly position.

you need to understand that not just government can abuse of their power if not kept in check.

I miss birdporn hungry Kat.

Is Kat still looking at it every now and then?
Will Paz find her hidden stash someday?

She built an anti-gravity machine to show off proteins in zero-G as her science fair project years ago.

Same

>tfw when all these could be fixed by undoing all the bullshit that enables these monopolies but business is so embedded in politics, it would be impossible now.