Meaning is embedded into the structural syntax of the universe, and necessarily so.  Information catalyzes meaning.  Without meaning, information is useless, chaotic, and impossible to decipher or communicate. 
Without meaning, you wouldn't be able to empirically study anything.

To say the Universe is meaningless is akin to saying that language is meaningless (reality is, by definition, a language).  But, that would be ridiculous because language predicates meaning.

Basically, if you think the Universe is meaningless, then please explain how information is conveyable.

God states in the Bible, "I am who am."  That does not imply that he is a being, but rather that he is being, period.

And, an omnipotent god would, logically, be able to place his own constraints upon himself, e.g. manifesting as a human.

Circular reference, though unsound, does not make an argument invalid.

A: My logic is sound.
B: How do you know?
A: Sound logic indicates that it is sound.

I thought a gigahash is a certain number of hash calculations, e.g. 1 gigahash/s is 1,000,000,000 hashes calculated per second.  Therefore, I think I'm just talking about one hash calculation that satisfied both the difficulties for an acceptable share value (in this particular case, d=128) and for solving a block (d=68.2M).

That's why I called it a gigashare, and I put it in quotes because I wasn't sure what else to call it.

Best game of all time, by a wide margin:

The definition of god being "infinite," "omniscient" and "omnipresent" can arguably be applied to us, and evidence is available through direct experience to support this argument.

Yes, because difficulty adjustments only happen when new blocks are solved.  You solved a block at the current difficulty, then more blocks were solved and then the difficulty adjusted.  It's not like the block you solved gets erased.  If that were the case, then the vast majority of solved blocks would've been erased, and we wouldn't have a working blockchain.

Like a "gigashare" or something?  Would a trillion difficulty share be T for tera, and a quadrillion difficulty share be P for peta?

I was mining some litecoins and found a share at difficulty "2.22G"

What the hell is G?  If 2.22M is 2.22 million, then G is...?

Talking about nodes isn't talking about the "programming" side of things.  It's understanding an integral part of the Bitcoin system.  I'm not suggesting you need to learn or understand code, I'm just suggesting that you might want to have a working conceptual model of the Bitcoin protocol so that you know how it, well, works.

And yes, that is exactly what I tell them, "Don't use it unless you do your due diligence first."  Bitcoin is a BETA project and it's not ready for everyone to use.  Developers are working on making it more accessible. But I can't tell you how many times people willingly encourage their own ignorance, then mess up somewhere and lose all their coins, and then they blame Bitcoin for being too technical for the average user.  Well, it IS too technical for the average user still, and until more user-friendly services and software become available, then I wouldn't want my friends and family using it.

It should be "obvious" that a person ought to spend time researching a radically new currency before attempting to use it.

It should be equally obvious that this concern takes precedence over your specific question, and that is why some if us are addressing this concern instead of directly answering your question.

The reason I said what I said is because of my legitimate concern for you.  Bitcoin is not like fiat currency, it requires a much higher level of user competence.  Without this competence, you are susceptible to making mistakes that could cost you your coins.  The fact that this is a BETA project and you want to use it but don't care to learn about it (and worse, you assume you don't need to learn about it) is alarming.

I spent over a dozen hours researching Bitcoin before I even downloaded my first client.  

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page

You really need to start here.  From the questions you're asking, it makes me worried that you're using bitcoins at all.

So if you "lose" you're out nothing while the other guy is out 10 btc.

You didn't think more than 5 seconds about this idea, did you?

A bitcoin is anything that isn't a non-bitcoin.

There.  A perfectly accurate definition.

So, I assume you accept escrow, right?

No.  Each hash attempt is independent of all others, so each hash attempt has the same probability of solving a block as all others.

When you have more powerful hardware, you are simply making more calculations within a set time frame.  When hashing rates increase, there is a greater probability that larger hash sums will be discovered within that set time frame.

So, no, it didn't take "1000 times longer to find."  But, on average, you would solve 1,000 blocks at the lower difficulty in the time it would take you to solve 1 block at the greater difficulty.  And who knows, maybe someone will submit a share tomorrow at a difficulty 1,000,000 times greater.

These articles are pretty bad.  

Edit: I take that back.  These articles are awful and argued horrendously.  False assumptions and invalid conclusions abound.

Lol get the fuck out of here.

This is basically what I was thinking, though I didn't respond as bluntly.

This whole thing started off with you (sublime) being robbed of <2 btc. Then, when the attention shifted toward your lack of care regarding the mismanagement of your funds, you got defensive.  So, you began finding anything negative that you could say about BTC regardless of whether it was relevant to the theft.  This is obvious -- how could someone who claims to lack technical knowledge know why some particular aspect of BTC is flawed and then assume that there must be a fix?  Hint: you can, but you're likely going to be wrong right from the get go.  Most of your criticisms are non-issues because there are already solutions to them, while other criticisms are just inaccurate altogether.  Furthermore, some of your demands and criticisms inherently contradict others.

Your ego is bruised, and since there isn't anyone specific to blame other than yourself (identity of the thief is unknown), you attack a protocol that cannot act on its own.  If you're not going to use BTC, at least provide us with the real reason, namely that you don't know how to use it and don't want to learn how.  That's a more respectable position in my book.  I do believe that BTC is too technical or inconvenient right now for many people, but if you operated a PayPal/btc business for over a year, then don't try to convince us that your 'laziness' is justified, expecially when BTC is still in BETA.