Slashdot Mirror


King James Programming

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "What do you get when you train a Markov chain on the King James Bible and a copy of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs? King James Programming — a tumblr of auto-generated pseudo-scripture (or pseudo-compsci lessons). Some examples: -- 'The LORD is the beginning (or prefix) of the code for the body of the procedure.' -- 'More precisely, if P and Q are polynomials, let O1 be the order of blessed.' -- ''In APL all data are represented as arrays, and there shall they see the Son of man, in whose sight I brought them out.'"

184 comments

  1. Hey!!! by thewils · · Score: 5, Funny

    It actually makes more sense!

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:Hey!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It actually makes more sense!

      Which book?

    2. Re:Hey!!! by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Blessed be the Lisp makers, for they shall inherit the special forms.

    3. Re:Hey!!! by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I love my new signature...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Hey!!! by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That stuff totally needs to go into a fortune file. And then be included in the default fortune files of all major distros.

    5. Re:Hey!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jesus himself said, "I am the Lambda."

    6. Re:Hey!!! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      Given their repository it should be trivial.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    7. Re:Hey!!! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      "the lisp makers?"

      "well, I think he was referring to makers of all nested paren languages."

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:Hey!!! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "help! I'm being held prisoner in a markov chain gang!"

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:Hey!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Careful now, boy, you don't want to commit a heresy, do you?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should use this to develop Jesix, or whatever it was called. You know, that Linux distro where they changed potentially offensive commands like "mount".

    1. Re:Jesix by citab · · Score: 5, Funny

      What about the Sermon on the /mnt?

      or /mnt/sermon?

    2. Re:Jesix by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      Taking offense to words like "mount" has nothing to do with the Bible. Those are CHURCH teachings. There is a difference.

    3. Re:Jesix by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You know, I really wasn't trolling but I suppose it was inevitable that someone would try to mark it "damn you".

    4. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” -- Matthew 15:10-11.

      Or maybe that's saying that you have to swallow, not spit. The Bible can be cryptic sometimes.

    5. Re:Jesix by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      And he called the people to him and said to them, âoeHear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.â -- Matthew 15:10-11.

      Or maybe that's saying that you have to swallow, not spit. The Bible can be cryptic sometimes.

      But that's my whole point. The Bible doesn't say words like "mount" are offensive. PEOPLE decide that. And most commonly, people who preach from pulpits.

    6. Re:Jesix by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That was code for 'orgy' back in the day ;-) /ducks

    7. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real OS for believers is not Linux... To really chasten oneself, one needs the "other" system. Where the patience is tried constantly and temptation for ungodly curses is strongest. Only that system is kept alive by prayers and duct-tape. Linux is boring comparatively, tempting to lure one to the mortal sin of sloth.

    8. Re:Jesix by anagama · · Score: 2

      So mount is bad but what about "dicked" as in, "I got dicked around by that asshole."

      Addition of /usr/dict/kjv.words (exhaustive)

      http://pudge.net/jesux/

      Man, these guys are total fucktards:

      - Login screen has full text to Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, with Christian and American symbols

      - qmail replaces sendmail as the standard MTA (sendmail was written by a prominent homosexual)

      - No encryption provided; Christians have nothing to hide

      The one positive piece of information I could find on the site was this:

      This page last updated Wednesday, September 29, 1999, 13:51:07 PDT

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    9. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you think there's no connection between the KJV, Jesus, and church teachings?

      Anyway, sex is a beautiful, natural thing (except for the sweaty, smelly, sticky parts). In spite of that, a lot of Christians - I hesitate to claim the majority - hate to be reminded that they are animals.

    10. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought was restricted to the "Satan" monitoring software, which had the "Santa" display option.

    11. Re:Jesix by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Man, these guys are total fucktards:

      Ahem. Perhaps you should calibrate your sarcasm detector.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:Jesix by Megane · · Score: 1

      So you want to worship in a place with stained-glass windows?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    13. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 0

      I decline your category offer.

      We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.

      However, I will not argue with your self-categorization as an animal. Particularly since you do so because somebody made a chart with authoritative-sounding Latin names and put them in a tree-shaped chart and all.

      I'll get back with you on the implications for yourself sometime after Cladistics destroys the mess of systemic arbitrariness of Linnean Taxonomy.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    14. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say I am abeliever ;-) I was already seduced by the simplicity of sanity and later cursed by SELinux

    15. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, I will not argue with your self-categorization as an animal. Particularly since you do so because somebody made a chart with authoritative-sounding Latin names and put them in a tree-shaped chart and all.

      No, I don't care about charts. Animals, as you are well aware, are generally multi-cellular carbon-based organisms that are born, breathe, metabolize food, excrete waste products, grow bodies through a somatic line, reproduce via a germ line through genetic recombination, and eventually die. Humans are part of the mammal subset of animals, meaning we walk upright, grow hair, nurse our young, reproduce sexually, etc. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.

      Perhaps you meant to argue that humans are more than just animals. I can't argue that point since there's really no evidence that we have any traits qualitatively unique among mammals except for abstract speech.

    16. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only person other than citab that knows that "mount" in this context means "mountian"? Way ruin a pun.

    17. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "animal" is just a word... like "nefesh chaya." It's that abstract language thing I mentioned. Either word will do if it serves just as a label for whatever a human being is. Neither one really tells you anything about our true nature in and of itself.

      So, it doesn't really matter how you categorize us. Categories are artificial, flesh is real, and there is no denying these facts that I was so rude to remind you of. Humans are animals by any reasonable definition of the word.

    18. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      I'm a little puzzled though. Why would I consider your position "rude" to me? You're the animal.

      Since we both agree on that point, I'm not entirely sure what your fundamental motivation is to attempting to enforce on me a category you yourself say would be "artificial".

      Do you?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    19. Re:Jesix by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Not sure if youre aware, but theres an entire book of the bible dedicated to how sex is a beautiful thing.

      Still strawmen are always fun i guess.

    20. Re:Jesix by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Poe's Law in action.

      It's impossible to recognise satire like that accurately because there really are some extreme Christians who go to such lengths. Pensacola Christian College, for example, has been known to suspend students for making excessively long eye contact with someone of the opposite sex and has official rules (not just informal, they are written down in the rulebook) prohibiting such sinful activities as visiting the home of an unmarried person, dancing, visiting a cinema or being present in a mixed-sex group without an approved college chaperone. They even segregate their corridoors and elevators by gender, to make sure no male and female may ever accidentally encounter one another and be tempted to converse unsupervised.

      Also, Christian linux distributions do exist. They aren't quite so elaborate though - the ones I know of are essentially just more mainstream distros wth a few extra packages added like bible reference software, Christian-themed wallpaper and some form of web filter.

    21. Re:Jesix by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      " However, much as I don't have to categorize a "car" as a "truck" because they both have engines, drivetrains, etc." - true, you would call them all vehicles, a car is a subset of vehicles and that equates to humans being a subset of animals

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    22. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, it doesn't "equate" to that in particular.

      You have a conceptual hierarchy that is:

      1. Animals
      1.1. Humans
      1.2. Other animals

      I have a hierarchy that is:

      1. Living beings
      1.1. Humans
      1.2. Animals

      There is not a single thing anywhere in existence that makes the first form objectively preferable, much less mandatory. You have accepted an arbitrary construct, and you believe it to be "the truth". It is not "the way things really are", it is "a system of categories some people made up and subsequently people use".

      Break it down, then. Tell me, specifically, what you feel in objective reality justifies the first rendering of the categories over the second. Trace your own thoughts step-by-step here, and from where they originate.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    23. Re:Jesix by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      i think your mind is closed to reality and need a superiority complex to try and justify "we are not animals".

      1. Living beings.
      1.1 animals (in no particular order)
      1.1.1 mammals, marsupials etc all things that live, breath, eat, shit, breed
      1.1.2 birds
      1.1.3 fish
      1.2. plants i.e. trees flowers etc
      1.3 bacteria/viruses etc

      Humans are only "dominate" because we evolved a little further than others i.e chimpanzees and humans share 98% DNA ( I think we share about 40% with cauliflower). BUT we are still animals, (sometimes worse i.e. humans that shoot other species for "sport").

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    24. Re:Jesix by jlp2097 · · Score: 2

      It is a joke. Relax.

    25. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm a little puzzled though. Why would I consider your position "rude" to me?

      Because I'm trying to disabuse your of your delusion that you are special, unique, superior, chosen.

      > You're the animal.

      "I am not... an... animal... I am ... a human ... being!"

    26. Re:Jesix by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      (sometimes worse i.e. humans that shoot other species for "sport").

      Have you ever watched a cat playing with a mouse?

      We are definitely not much different than other animals in that regard.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    27. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries. I'm aware of Song of Solomon. Funny how modern, uptight Christians tend to skip that book in Sunday School, eh?

      So, no strawman since I'm not misrepresenting the attitudes of many modern Christians.

    28. Re:Jesix by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There is not a single thing anywhere in existence that makes the first form objectively preferable, much less mandatory.

      There is such a thing; it's called scientific biology.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re:Jesix by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      i think your mind is closed to reality and need a superiority complex to try and justify "we are not animals".

      If you haven't noticed yet, Empiric is the local religious loony. Oftentimes I wonder if he's real, or just a very clever troll. But then again, I've seen sad cases like that in real life (very few, fortunately, due to me residing in very much an atheistic country), he's probably real.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re: Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only there is. Anyone working on, for instance, new medicines development will tell you that the first categorization is much more productive and tied to reality.

    31. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chmod(1) accepts hexadecimal modes, such as 0x01B6

      THAT is my favorite. You DO know that the 666 mask give Satan permission to that file/directory, right?!?

    32. Re:Jesix by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The characterization of humans as animals is, indeed, arbitrary, just as the heliocentric solar system is arbitrary. Ptlomeics CAN handle the same information.

      I would be interested in the definition that you use for animal that includes all other animals, and does not include humans.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    33. Re:Jesix by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It takes a certain Je ne sais quoi to get whooshed by a 14-year-old parody. I salute you, Sir|Ma'am|Fido.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    34. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      That is no argument at all. State specifics, and how they mandate a particular conceptual hierarchy.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    35. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, -you personally- feel the categorization is insufficient, and therefore wish to drag me to it.

      Considering myself best categorized as "human" makes a claim for unique superiority?

      What nonsense. Your metaphysics is incoherent. Deal with it.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    36. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Nice navel-gazing ad hominem with a little psychic projection.

      Move on to an argument whenever you are ready.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    37. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed you cannot see this as an arbitrary categorical construct.

      These can be organized innumerable ways, none of which would have exclusive metaphysical "correctness".

      Well, as I said, I am perfectly willing to respect your demand that you be considered an animal. There is simply no actual reason you can expand that to what "we" are. That is a freely-chosen and arbitrary preference you've made for yourself, by acceding to a practically-useful categorical system as the exclusively valid one.

      I suggest reading Pirsig on Euclidian "versus" Riemann geometry for an entirely non-religious treatment of this issue, that you may find more palatable.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    38. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Couldn't ask for a more appropriate respondent here.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    39. Re: Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Then, the specific "ties to reality", so we can evaluate their objective weight for a given domain. You are assuming one domain of applicability, which you have no reason to do other than, I suggest, conceptual laziness.

      I'm quite well aware of the practical usefulness of the categorical system for given domains, and its status as "common sense". Neither of these is the question at hand.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    40. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Finally, a reasonable and pertinent response.

      Though I could probably refine it, "living beings not possessing the attribute of an immortal soul" would probably do. This could be open to scientific objections, but not definitional ones.

      Note that there could be bipedal, clothes-wearing hominids included by this definition, particularly if their self-reported possession of a soul is negative. I am well aware of that.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    41. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What nonsense. Your metaphysics is incoherent. Deal with it.

      I don't believe in metaphysics. It's just mental masturbation.

      (Oh, wait.. what does 'mental' mean? Shit! Gotta go think some more...)

    42. Re:Jesix by Timex · · Score: 1

      Man, these guys are total fucktards: ...

      Before you start throwing incendiary names at people, perhaps you should consider reading the About page ... It makes you out to be the type of person whose only exercise is jumping to conclusions. (I don't know if you really are or not; that's not my business, nor is it any of my concern.)

      --
      When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
    43. Re:Jesix by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What test is used for the presence of a soul? Please note that self reporting is not a valid test, as it's easy to program such an assertion in a loop.

      Also, on what basis do you assert that my dog doesn't have a soul?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    44. Re:Jesix by tragedy · · Score: 1

      We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.

      Sorry if you have a different interpretation here, but doesn't "nefesh chaya" translate as something like "living beast" (alternatively, "living soul", but passages that mention it specifically allude to the fact that all animals posess this quality)? Aren't all animals nefesh chaya (or possessing nefesh chaya, depending on your definition), making your distinction meaningless in this context?

    45. Re:Jesix by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I've replied elsewhere, but I think this would be another good place to point this out. "Nefesh Shaya" appears in Genesis 1:20-21:

      20: And God said: "Let the waters teem with crawling beings of living soul (Nefesh Chaya) and birds that fly over the earth across the expanse of the heavens."

      21: And God created the great sea giants and every living soul (nefesh hachaya) which creeps that the waters teemed with their kinds; and all winged bird to its kind. And God saw that it was good

      So, based on that, your original claim that "nefesh shaya" is what differentiates us from animals is nonsense since, by some translations, it literally means "animal". By other translations, it still means something that, at the very least, definitely applies to some sea life. So, is it that humans and lobsters are special and unique and apart from all other living things, or are you just making up your own interpretation?

    46. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The characterization of humans as animals is, indeed, arbitrary, just as the heliocentric solar system is arbitrary. Ptlomeics CAN handle the same information.

      It is not "arbitrary," it is systematic and based on observation.

      Furthermore, the current heliocentric system was deduced by observation and refinement of models. Epicycles cannot handle the same information adequately:

      "Kepler calculated and recalculated various approximations of Mars' orbit using an equant (the mathematical tool that Copernicus had eliminated with his system), eventually creating a model that generally agreed with Tycho's observations to within two arcminutes (the average measurement error). But he was not satisfied with the complex and still slightly inaccurate result; at certain points the model differed from the data by up to eight arcminutes. The wide array of traditional mathematical astronomy methods having failed him, Kepler set about trying to fit an ovoid orbit to the data."

      The trouble you're having is that you think because a theory is based on a model, and is not in a strict sense "true," that any old model will do just as well. Actually, science improves the models by further observation and testing until it is confirmed to be true within reason. Of course, a theory can go out the window if new observations refute it, but evolution and astrophysics are both highly confirmed by the available evidence. As Asimov put it, fair consideration of theories doesn't mean 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

    47. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      "...your original claim that 'nefesh shaya' is what differentiates us from animals..."

      I made no such claim. The term is not an attribute, it is a descriptor.

      It is best translated as "living soul", which does indeed include humans and animals. Note that this term does not imply "immortal soul".

      As I later explicitly used English for in an elaborating argument, categorizing both humans and animals as "living souls" (or "living beings") is not synonymous with stating that humans are a subcategory of animals.

      Here is an early Google hit which brief review indicates I'm in agreement with.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    48. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I noted that my definition was open to scientific, but not definitional, objection, and here you are, informing me of what I said.

      You are simply declaring it "not a valid test" on the basis of... nothing. It may not conform to your epistemological preferences, but that hardly matters.

      Self-reporting is a valid indicator for phenomena of consciousness that are not easily subjected to quantification by scientific instruments. I can certainly ask for someone's self-reported stance on whether Mondays make them unusually sad, and the answer is probably accurate regardless of whether it is provable via an MRI.

      As for your dog's soul, better to ask for the affirmative evidence it does exist here. We have peer-reviewed NDE studies indicating it exists, per self-reporting "eye witness" accounts, for humans. We do not have the equivalent for dogs.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    49. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We have peer-reviewed NDE studies indicating it exists, per self-reporting "eye witness" accounts, for humans.

      Interesting that NDEs have never produced any evidence for anything that couldn't happen in a hallucination...

    50. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No.

      Recounting events that happened from the perspective of being "outside the body" while comatose is such evidence. Perceiving "from outside oneself" could arguably be a hallucination, recounting actual events requiring visual and auditory perception to know, that occurred while one was in a comatose state, could not.

      Here's one source.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    51. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I've heard of the "dentures" case. Unfortunately what you have there is not evidence, it's testimony. And even if it were considered acceptable as evidence, at most it would be evidence for some sort of ESP ability, not for the existence of an immortal soul.

      Consider this: memories are physically encoded by neurons in the brain, from physical sensory nerves in the eyes, ears, nose, etc. These subjects clearly have a physical memory of their experience. You're suggesting that they are somehow remembering input from non-physical "eyes," "ears," etc. What possible mechanism could allow for this?

      (Of course, if you can locate the "interface" between brain and soul, you stand to win a Nobel prize. Descartes thought it was the pineal gland, but that theory didn't exactly pan out...)

    52. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a thorough debunking of why NDE's, while intriguing, are not evidence of anything at all.

    53. Re:Jesix by tragedy · · Score: 1

      "...your original claim that 'nefesh shaya' is what differentiates us from animals..."

      I made no such claim. The term is not an attribute, it is a descriptor.

      First, it seems to me that you did make such a claim when you replied to an AC near the start of this thread:

      In spite of that, a lot of Christians - I hesitate to claim the majority - hate to be reminded that they are animals.

      I decline your category offer.

      We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.

      Then you went on to try to be snarky and insulting and holier-than-thou by saying that the AC was an animal, but that you personally were something better. Anyway, unless there's invisible extra text in there that I need magic diamond glasses to read, you're saying that you reject the AC's categorization of humans as animals and claim that humans are nefesh chaya instead. This makes no sense since humans and other animlas are both either nefesh chaya or posess nefesh chaya depending on exactly how you translate and interpret nefesh chaya: "living soul" or "animal" (from the Latin: Anima, meaning "breath" or "soul") or perhaps "organism". A "living soul" could be a descriptor saying what something is, but could also be an attribute that something posesses depending on point of view and exact translation. Either way, it's not something that differentiates humans and other animals.

      As I later explicitly used English for in an elaborating argument, categorizing both humans and animals as "living souls" (or "living beings") is not synonymous with stating that humans are a subcategory of animals.

      In the context we're using, humans are clearly a subcategory of "living souls". The set of "living souls" is the set of all animals. You believe that humans possess special properties that make them stand out from the set. So what. Many members of the set have special qualities that make them stand out from the set, they're still in the set. I mean, for crying out loud, as I pointed out earlier, the word "animal" comes from a latin word which literally means virtually the same thing as "living soul"/nefesh chaya.


      Here is an early Google hit which brief review indicates I'm in agreement with.

      Ok. So, to be clear, you're definitely either 100% pro-choice when it comes to abortion (including late term abortion) or you're a vegan, right? Because if you're in agreement with that article, you have to be one of those things since it's very clear that, until the moment of birth, a human is no different than any other animal. So, you should only object to abortions at any point before birth if you also completely object to killing animals for any reason, in which case you should be a Vegan to remain philosophically consistant.

      Aside from that, what about all the animals that can reason, even if not better than the average human? There are animals that can reason better than a minority of humans (not to mention infant humans whose reasoning capacity is dwarfed by that of nearly all other mammals). Then there's speech, which is also posessed by a number of animals, either through sign languauge or outright ability to form audible words. Then there are those who posess some form of speech and also some reasoning capacity. So, is that the way it is? Humans, parrots and gorillas on a pedestal, raised up above the scum that are the rest of the kingdom animalia? Sure, the chimpanzees can't get into the club because they bite (and human children never, ever, ever do that), but what are you gonna do, you know?

      P.S. I'm interested by your signature, which is an excerpt from the gospel of Mary Magdelene. It seems an odd contrast here with your rigid and orthodox view of humanities place among (or not among) the other animals.

    54. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Testimony is evidence. You can argue about the relative strength of that evidence, but not whether it is evidence per se. You have the entire history of the judicial system constraining you from equivocating/weaseling out of accurate definitions.

      What possible mechanism allows for copying software onto a thumb drive, executing it on another machine, then copying its "state" back? You simply need a substrate for this, and although such things as dark matter could suffice to maintain state, we do not need a specific substrate to be identified for it to be theoretically possible. Physics doesn't even know how many dimensions there are--are you prepared to say you can exclude all other mediums of data/state/consciousness?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    55. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      As you might guess, I reject that this is a "debunking" at all. Looks like mainly a tautological argument that "consciousness is only the brain, therefore any claims of consciousness apart from the brain are false".

      With some Appeal to Authority and non-germane claims about "anecdotal evidence". Peer-reviewed studies are not anecdotes.

      If you think you can debunk it, do so here. Handwaving a link, isn't it.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    56. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testimony is evidence. You can argue about the relative strength of that evidence, but not whether it is evidence per se. You have the entire history of the judicial system constraining you from equivocating/weaseling out of accurate definitions.

      Don't be disingenuous. If you're citing The Lancet, we're talking about scientific evidence, not the courtroom.

    57. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No, you are talking about scientific evidence, because you are compelled to go to a more restrictive criteria that isn't germane, and if provided with scientific evidence, you will find something to restrict it further, as far as is necessary to exclude it as "evidence". Fortunately, your restrictions don't actually matter in any way.

      We can do a Philosophy of Science definitional dance here as to whether peer-reviewed studies are "science", but it doesn't appear it will be particularly constructive.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    58. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are talking about scientific evidence, because you are compelled to go to a more restrictive criteria that isn't germane

      Of course it's germane. You're making a factual claim about the natural world, and you want to admit he-said-she-said in support of it. I urge you to read the studies linked from the debunking blog I posted above. Tales of NDEs are about as reliable as sightings of Bigfoot.

    59. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I read your Lancet paper, the least you could have done is read the material linked from the blog, but it's obvious you didn't even do that. How you can look at the "mountains of evidence... rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research" describing how the brain and mind are intimately connected, versus the flimsy, conjectural, anecdotal evidence that they are separate and conclude that it's the neuroscientists who suffer from confirmation bias is... flabbergasting.

      Incidentally, the Lancet paper, while not "an anecdote," does contain the single anecdote on which you base your whole argument, which is essentially irrelevant to the study. They probably included it only because it's so remarkable. Peer reviewers most likely weren't looking at that. The paper doesn't say what you think it does (that there is medical evidence for an immaterial soul). It says that medical factors appear to be uncorrelated with NDEs, and that's all.

    60. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      You are arguing a Straw Man. Neither I nor anyone else is denying the brain is involved in consciousness. That's been known since the first caveman hit another caveman in the head with a rock. What I am arguing is that the physical brain is not -sufficient in itself- to explain known mental phenomena.

      Not the least of which is the whole range of everyday phenomena within the scope of the Mind-Body Problem.

      The paper says precisely what I say it does. Phenomena suggestive of an "immaterial soul" are consistently experienced during NDE's. The study quantifies them and elaborates on the specifics of their experiential nature and the medical conditions under which they occur. Again, you need to establish a basic baseline of intellectual honesty regarding definitions and content.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    61. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No, the -germane- question is whether or not there is -evidence-. That is what you are persistently evading by claims of dissatisfaction regarding whether the evidence provided is meeting what you feel like having as the criteria in your brain at the moment.

      The question is whether there is evidence.

      If there is quantified self-reported experience, there is evidence.

      If there is scientific ("testable") evidence, there is evidence.

      I submit that in this case, consciousness outside the brain is the hypothesis, death is the test, and the reported results quite meet the criteria for a scientific test. However, it is entirely unnecessary for you to agree. The former criterion clearly makes it evidence regardless.

      I'll pretend your "Bigfoot" equivalency claim is something even you believe as you are stating it. Show me then your peer-reviewed study on Bigfoot, preferably written by multiple Ph.D.s and published by among the most prestigious journals of its class in Europe. I've given you mine.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    62. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If there is quantified self-reported experience, there is evidence.

      There is evidence that people had an experience - and those people were alive, as their resuscitation demonstrates. Once those neurons in your head die, they don't come back. In other words, nothing to see here.

    63. Re:Jesix by Empiric · · Score: 1

      They had an experience directly correlating with that which one would expect if consciousness were not constrained to the brain, corresponding with experience corresponding to the expectations of theistic metaphysics, rather than the random hallucinations one would expect from "general brain failure".

      ...nothing to see here.

      Stop directly lying.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    64. Re:Jesix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, it's obvious you haven't read ANY of the supporting material from the blog.

      They had an experience which is not reliable to report anything they couldn't have known or imagined based on sensory input a living body can assimilate.

      READ the supporting material. NDEs are full of "memories" of things that didn't happen, or were not accurate descriptions of the environment surrounding the "clinically dead" subject.

  3. Interesting by sharknado · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some of the marketing crap my company produces is worse than the quotes generated in TFA. ...I wonder if I could make a business out of outsourcing our marketing team with this algorithm...I'll suggest to my boss and see what he says.

    1. Re:Interesting by sharknado · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some of the marketing crap my company produces is worse than the quotes generated in TFA. ...I wonder if I could make a business out of outsourcing our marketing team with this algorithm...I'll suggest to my boss and see what he says.

      Update: It didn't go over so well.

    2. Re:Interesting by chromas · · Score: 1

      Probably because they'd have to pay the algorithm more than the marketing team.

    3. Re:Interesting by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Because the marketing team does visuals?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. oh noes! by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scientology has a competitor! somehow, someone somewhere will take this way too seriously.

    1. Re:oh noes! by rourin_bushi · · Score: 2

      Man, I sure hope so. This thing is pure gold.

    2. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  5. Markov Chains by pieisgood · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wow, a series of probabilistic transitions between words has given us a mishmash of programming and bible gibberish. This is the expected result, but isn't even novel. You could do this with any N texts and get out gibberish. I much prefer markov chains as a way to produce music.

    --
    Eat sleep die
    1. Re:Markov Chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow a series of synaptic interactions lead to you to an expected conclusion that isn't even novel. You must be fun at parties.
       
      (Preferring Markov chains to produce music is like preferring light to produce clouds rather than projected films. There's not really a right or wrong, but your preference is for the choice that is least likely to provoke or offend.)

    2. Re:Markov Chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant the visual image of clouds in the sky, not the clouds themselves. Damn caffeine withdrawal.

    3. Re:Markov Chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's not really a right or wrong, but your preference is for the choice that is least likely to provoke or offend."

      My aesthetic-algorithmic analysis of his preference leads me to conclude that this disposition is predominately due to him not being a general dick.

    4. Re:Markov Chains by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not supposed to be novel, it's supposed to be funny.
      In that, it succeeds quite well.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re: Markov Chains by Oscaro · · Score: 1

      Not novel indeed, I saw this more than twenty years ago on The Practice of Computer programming by Kernighan and Pike. Still funny, though.

    6. Re:Markov Chains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, basic particles move and do stuff.

      The fact is that the value of everything - absolutely everything - comes down to taste.

      The easiest way to enjoy something is not to get your panties in a bunch when someone else doesn't enjoy it.

    7. Re:Markov Chains by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's okay, the light creates the clouds too.

  6. Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The word of the Lord is not to be altered or trivialized like this

    May He have mercy on your pathetic souls

    1. Re:Blasphemy by narcc · · Score: 5, Funny

      SICP is popular right now, but I'd hardly call it divinely inspired.

    2. Re:Blasphemy by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 2

      As a conservative-leaning, bible-thumping Southern Baptist, I find TFA and your (probably deliberate troll) response hilarious.

    3. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Particularly given it doesn't even offer a solution to the Halting Problem.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    4. Re:Blasphemy by RevSpaminator · · Score: 2

      The Lord already took mercy on my soul when my ex-wife moved over 3000 miles away. Then "BoB" Dobbs came along with his pipe and helped me sort out the rest.

    5. Re:Blasphemy by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Do you read the unaltered bible or are you using one of the many translations?
      Languages do not map 1:1 (otherwise, machine translation would be easy and perfect), so any translation inevitably alters the meaning of the original text.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Blasphemy by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1

      Do you read the unaltered bible or are you using one of the many translations?
      Languages do not map 1:1 (otherwise, machine translation would be easy and perfect), so any translation inevitably alters the meaning of the original text.

      Uhm, what exactly is this "unaltered bible". Even the King James verison, which is the closest there is to a "standard" bible for the English language, contains more than a few translations errors (when compared to much older Greek texts from which it was translated), as well as some deliberate alterations.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    7. Re:Blasphemy by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      "You have never experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."

    8. Re:Blasphemy by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      "right now"? SICP has been popular since the 70s, and with good reason.

    9. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the Greek manuscripts do not agree with each other on what the original New Testament writers actually wrote. There is less disagreement about the Hebrew of the Old Testament, at least back to where the books were collected into something of the form of the Old Testament we know and love.

    10. Re:Blasphemy by E++99 · · Score: 2

      Uhm, what exactly is this "unaltered bible". Even the King James verison, which is the closest there is to a "standard" bible for the English language...

      Um, I'm pretty sure that the Bible was not written in English and that the King James version is a translation.

    11. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the words of the great Unix Patriarchs must to be debased by such blasphemy.

    12. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Show me a case in the bible, or any competent translation of any text, where the translation meaningfully changes the conclusions you would draw as to its overall meaning from reading it.

      And please don't tell me you've never even thought about applying this first step to intellectual honesty on this issue, given all those other texts (which, oddly, seem to get a pass based on the sole criterion that they are non-religious) surrounding you.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    13. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

    14. Re:Blasphemy by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The SubGenius must have slack. (ware)

    15. Re:Blasphemy by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the KJV was the translation into English that was made at perhaps a high point in English culture, so to speak. Which makes it sort of a standard.

    16. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Show me a case in the bible, or any competent translation of any text, where the translation meaningfully changes the conclusions you would draw as to its overall meaning from reading it.

      Just look at the controversy over the translation of the Hebrew word "alma" variously as "virgin" or "maiden" or "young woman."

      Your conclusions may be very different if you choose the translation "virgin" over the alternatives!

    17. Re:Blasphemy by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      How about the "virgin Mary" which can just as well be translated as the "young woman Mary" from the (known) original? I give you that the same error is in the Septuaginta (the Greek "original" most translations draw from) and that due to this it has been elevated to dogma level, but the case stands: The Hebrew ha-almah (which appears in the prophecies of Isaiah that predict the arrival of Jesus) means just "young woman" and makes no claims about the sexual experience of said woman.

      Not to mention that Isaiah made that prophecy in the present tense, not the future. But that's beyond the scope of this argument.

      You might consider that a nontrivial translation error considering the fuss being made about the status of Mary's maidenhead (and the general fuss the RCC makes about sex in general).

      If needed I can look up some more (some are really hilarious, especially when it comes to homosexuality or sex in general), but that's the only one I could remember.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Given the cultural norms of the time, we can assume she was a virgin, or at minimum, the text was presenting someone who would in fact have a virgin for such a significant religious role, even if we stipulated your contention it referred to a different event. Yes, I've been over this many times. "Behold, a young woman shall conceive!" makes no sense in terms of an extraordinary event being presented, and the text is clearly intended to convey an exceptional event. To claim otherwise is just being pointlessly contrarian.

      But, really, you haven't addressed the question at all. In what sense would this make some fundamental difference to the message, i.e. resurrection, salvation, the nature of God, etc.?

      "It would indicate a possible difference in interpretation" does not meet the criteria of an actually-significant difference in the overall content as received.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    19. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      How so?

      See above.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    20. Re:Blasphemy by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      It most likely would not change anything about the life of Jesus or how he is seen as some kind of "special" person. But it would change a lot on how religious people perceive virginity as something special. And no, "Behold a young woman shall conceive" is nothing special. And I somehow doubt that it was meant to be. Considering the value of women back in those days, I'd be very surprised if he wanted to draw much attention to Jesus' mother. It's actually a rather insignificant part of the prophecy, if anything, it's the lead-in rather than an important part of it. If you read the part (I guess we're referring to Isaiah 7:14 here, correct me if I'm wrong), you'll notice that the whole part about his birth seems more to have a temporal meaning rather than one of origin, that the future king is yet to be born and not already amongst them, rather than putting emphasis on him being born by that certain young woman|virgin. That's not the focus of the prophecy. It gets clearer if you read it in Hebrew, the meaning is rather one of a young woman who has not yet given birth. She may or may not be virgin, but the important bit is rather that this future king will be her firstborn, not so much the question whether she is virgin or not. The emphasis on the virginity is missing, the emphasis is on this future kind being her firstborn, something that was actually of high importance back then (compare for example the last plague of Egypt where all firstborn are killed, or Kain and Abel, where Kain is the firstborn and hence should be loved more than Abel, which leads ultimately to his jealousy, something that would by no means have been justified had he been the second born son).

      But back to the change of effects this would have on the Church. It would not change the story much. Jesus would still be Jesus, no matter whether Mary is a virgin. What would maybe change, though, is our general moral situation and what we consider "moral" and "immoral". The emphasis on virginity would be much less. The same applies to other parts of the Bible where certain people, actions or omissions are allegedly "sinful", wrong or an offense to God. At any rate, I would not even remotely allow something like the King James version of the Bible be some kind of authority. Not even the Vulgata, not even the Septuaginta is beyond doubt. No matter what Pope or dogma says. Unless someone finds the original scripture, written by the original author who allegedly had some connection to God himself, doubt remains that errors were introduced by translation, or worse, deliberately added to further some agenda. Just think of the various Apocrypha written by "heretic" groups (especially common and popular amongst the Gnostics) where Peter, Thomas or even Judas allegedly wrote gospels that, surprise, surprise, further the Gnostic world view.

      How can we be certain that something similar did not happen with the canon books somewhere in the millenia since their creation?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're speaking too fast when you comment the norms of the time.

      A lot of people have the misconception, that people were puritan around the commonly accepted date of birth.
      I claim, It was more diverse then, than it is now.

    22. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you translate it as anything other than virgin, you remove the entire idea of miraculous virgin birth from the religion. I'd say that would alter Christianity quite considerably, particularly the Catholic church.

      Does it change the ten commandments or the teachings of Jesus? No but it significantly alters the context - and somewhat undermines his claim to divinity.

    23. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No, because you can't remove that, and have a viable translation. You can remove it for the purposes of saying the bible is inconsistent, thus form an argument that it is invalid, but you cannot remove it to form an alternate functional translation.

      This is quite simply a case of your translation being wrong, in the light of the context of the rest of the bible. The bible reiterates its core points quite consistently. Don't equivocate on this, you have no intention of, nor ability to, form what you are claiming. You are forming something else, an intentionally non-viable translation, and claiming it is an alternate viable translation. It isn't.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    24. Re:Blasphemy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And the greek texts are themselves a translation. Jesus and his contempories would have spoken in aramaic (With a little hebrew mixed in when debating religious matters) - their words were translated before being recorded. Exactly what they said is now lost to history.

    25. Re:Blasphemy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times?" - Numbers 22:32

    26. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Your analysis is based on the notion that you can viably change the interpretation of one verse and the content of the rest of the bible turns on that. This is false.

      As is the case for every other text, there are reiterations of meaning throughout the text. There are "parity bits" throughout the text, by analogy. You cannot change the meaning of one word merely because it is a word with multiple possible definitional meaning, and thus alter every other reference within the text to have the entirety now suddenly mean what it clearly does not. As is the case for every text, if a word is ambiguous to you, you can go ahead and refer to content of the rest of the document for resolution of the apparent ambiguity. No need to maintain that the bible is a special case in this sense relative to what you do every day with every other book in existence.

      You aren't forming an alternate viable translation. You are attempting to form a contradiction. Those are two different attacks along two different paths. Pick one.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    27. Re:Blasphemy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Loss of virginity would have greatly lowered the value of a woman as a bride. But Mary was already betrothed to Joseph, and there was no real formalisation of marriage at the time, so there was no real obligation for her to be a virgin at that point.

      A lot of modern Christian ideas of sexual 'purity' aren't anywhere in the bible - they are adapted from roman or medieval teachings. A very clear example of this can be seen in Samson, Judges 16. He visits and sleeps with a prostitute. Following which... nothing happens. No judgement from God. No disapproval. Far from it - he gets up in the morning and straight away starts using his divinely blessed superpowers. The truth is that, while Christians now have this notion that God calls upon men to remain virgins until married and monogamous thereafter, there was simply no such notion in Jewish culture of the time: If a man used the services of a prostitute, it was simply no big deal. The virginity of women was prized, but men faced no such restriction.

    28. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Jesus said: I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one.

      --Thomas

      Relevance is left as an exercise for the appropriate reader.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    29. Re:Blasphemy by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      what?? they didn't speak english with southern american accents????

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    30. Re:Blasphemy by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      My point is that with every translation a change of meaning becomes a possibility. A translation is by its very definition entail an interpretation of the text, which invariably will lead to a change of pace and meaning, at the very least the emphasis changes. It's a bit like playing telephone. You can actually try it yourself provided you find a few friends who happen to speak a few different languages, let the first one draft a short text and have the others translate it. Now add the temporal difference between the original draft in Hebrew and the KJB which is literally millennia and you're dealing not only with different languages but different interpreters that have a very different world view and mindset, a completely different background and probably their own agenda in mind, too.

      You want to rely on such a translation of a translation of a translation to be the verbatim word of God? After at the very least three humans had meddled with it (provided the original author had some divine inspiration), in three very different time periods with a very different outlook on the world?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:Blasphemy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Lot of sheer unbacked conjecture here. Probably of the kind you prefer that can always be narrowed in its scope to infinitesimal differences, which you will then present as probably differences overturning the entirety of the content, and given that possibility of individual-verse nuance, the actual overall content could be any imaginable thing.

      I'll suggest two things here:

      1. Read the actual methodology translators use. They are generally given in the preface to any given translation. None do a "translation of a translation of a translation"--none say "Hey, we have the KJV, so let's just refer exclusively to that, it'll save us time" and another group later saying "Hey, we have the NKJV, so we'll just refer to that alone for our translation". They refer to all available historical documents, every time, to produce their best-efforts to translating to the current language and vernacular. And no, subtle nuances in words do not potentially overturn the book's meaning, particularly when the entire rest of the bible is available as clarifying context, -as well as- all the historical versions for anyone who wishes to investigate the potential nuances of the original languages.

      2. Apply your exact same analysis to whether we can comprehend meaningfully Plato's Republic. If you can get more than two sentences in without your stance being clarified as absurd, once the self-induced "think of anything that will help me reject this" is removed from your thought process, I'll congratulate you.

      There is, however, nothing I can say that will convince you it is the "verbatim word of God", because you don't know what that even means, beyond something that sounds like it can be narrowed in specificity as far as you need to, to reach your pre-established goal of rejecting the content.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    32. Re:Blasphemy by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      There's an easy solution to the halting problem. It is called eternal life. That way, you can just wait until all programs finishing in finite time have finished (which will take infinite time, but with eternal life, you've got that infinite time), and then simply check which programs are still running.

      Actually, there's another solution, which even can decide it in finite time. Build an accelerating Turing machine. The first step takes one second, and each following step takes half the time of the preceding step. Then any program which has not finished after two seconds never will finish.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    33. Re:Blasphemy by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      and somewhat undermines his claim to divinity.

      No it doesn't because his claim of divinity is confirmed by his resurrection.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    34. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No it doesn't because his claim of divinity is confirmed by his resurrection.

      Uh, yeah, and that was confirmed when and how, exactly?

      (And no, "some people wrote about it decades after it supposedly happened" is not confirmation)

    35. Re:Blasphemy by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint to you: Context matters. Here the context is whether a different translation of the Hebrew word "alma" in the bible as "young woman" instead of "virgin" would undermine Jesus' claim to divinity. Of course the whole discussion rests on the bible, so the question whether the bible as such tells us something about reality is as relevant for this question as the question whether any of the events in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy have any relation to the real world has to the question whether the planet on which the Heart of Gold landed was really Magrathea.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    36. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It matters because if you're going to stake Jesus's divinity on claims such as:

      1. immaculately conceived
      2. walked on water
      3. turned water into wine
      4. healed the sick
      5. resurrected

      It assumes "more is better" in the case of miracles. If you only need one, why bother with the others?

      Oh, I forgot, you folks think myths and ancient superstitions are actual history.

    37. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word of the Lord is not to be altered or trivialized like this

      So other ways of altering or trivializing the word of the Lord (Lady) are ok, just not this particular one? How do you determine when it is ok to alter and/or trivialize?

    38. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was popular in the '70s, that must be due to the popularity of The Structure and Interpretation of Time Travel.

    39. Re:Blasphemy by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It's fairly clear what you're saying. You're saying: "nyah, nyah, you claim to know the music of Jimmy Hendrix, but you don't really, because you can't actually hear Jimmy. Only I can hear Jimmy."

    40. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct that the Hebrew word "ha-almah" (the word in the prophecies) can be translated as either "young woman" or "virgin", but the Greek "parthenos" (the word used in the gospels) can only mean "virgin".

    41. Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct that the Hebrew word "ha-almah" (the word in the prophecies) can be translated as either "young woman" or "virgin", but the Greek "parthenos" (the word used in the gospels) can only mean "virgin".

      Not true

  7. I've seen someone code this way by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2

    Used biblical references for branching tags. The code (assembly) would then have 'goto john', 'goto paul', etc spread about. It was pointed out to her that this made maintenance more difficult, and she needed to use more meaningful, informative tags. She did not, however, use 'hell' as one.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:I've seen someone code this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The code (assembly) would then have 'goto john', 'goto paul', etc spread about. It was pointed out to her that this made maintenance more difficult, and she needed to use more meaningful, informative tags.

      goto yoko?

    2. Re:I've seen someone code this way by Nimey · · Score: 1

      goto dengo

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:I've seen someone code this way by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Which assembly language used "goto" as mnemonic for a jump?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  8. Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon by cloud.pt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also in the day of the LORD’s house, all the words of Alan Perlis, “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon.”

    1. Re:Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      I have to self-reply to this since a mod decided this should be tagged offtopic. NEWSFLASH: that's a quote from the tumblr you dumblr mod!

  9. Awesome by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

    Oh man this a special kind of awesome right here!

  10. Funny Algorithms by Oscaro · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has always been one of my favorite algorithms. Saw it the first time many years ago on The Practice of Programming, by Kernighan and Pike. Always makes me laugh. You can use it to generate phrases or even psuedo-words that "sound like" any given real language. I use it to generate passwords that are easy to remember but cannot be found in any dictionary, of "fantasy names" for games. Have fun and plose some stilture on your cince! http://www.ploodood.net/

  11. Best Joke In Years by RevSpaminator · · Score: 1

    Someone should work out the licensing with the publishers of "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and create a full manuscript. I would buy it and put it right between to my copy of Principia Discorida and The Book Of The Subgenius.

    1. Re:Best Joke In Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this book

  12. Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a scientist I always test the null hypothesis to quantify usefulness of my research. They did a bunch of work, but is it any better than a simple randomized selection of text?

    As a quick test of the null hypothesis, below I have selected a random bible verse and inserted into the middle a random statement from SICP after the nearest to center semicolon, comma, period, and or or:

    God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, this takes two arguments, a symbol and a list, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

    And we have seen and, evaluating this combination involves three subproblems, testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

    Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, However, if we allow mutators on list structure, sharing becomes significant, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”

    Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me the machine repeatedly executes a controller loop, changing the contents of the registers, until some termination condition is satisfied, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

    Verses from: Random Bible Verse. I scrolled around the TOC with my eyes closed, clicked a link, then repeated the process waggling my mouse erratically to select sentences from SICP. YMMV.

    1. Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by narcc · · Score: 1

      You may want to review the term "null hypothesis".

    2. Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a scientist I always test the null hypothesis to quantify usefulness of my research. They did a bunch of work, but is it any better than a simple randomized selection of text?

      As a quick test of the null hypothesis, below I have selected a random bible verse and inserted into the middle a random statement from SICP after the nearest to center semicolon, comma, period, and or or:

      Not a valid comparison without an equal number of KJP verses mixed in randomly.

    3. Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He already gave examples of the nonsense coming out of the algorithm, theres no need to repeat. Even though yours was longer.

    4. Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to review the term "null hypothesis".

      I think GP used the term correctly, though I don't really see his point. The idea of combining the KJ Bible and SICP was diabolically clever - the implementation was merely engineering competence, but necessary in order to have a story. So GP is claiming there were other plausible implementations of the same diabolically clever idea. So what.

    5. Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but your experimental methodology for SICP is flawed. For example, if you set your mouse sensitivity sufficiently high, your wiggling will aways result in the scroll bar being at the top or the bottom. If also your window size is sufficiently small, then you will always click the top link, or the bottom link, of the TOC. What you need to do is calibrate your sampling procedure by computing a series of quantiles, changing the sensitivity and window size until these approximate the uniform distribution. I suggest getting a grad student to work out the details while we go to lunch. There's a special on roast beef in the cafeteria today.

    6. Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      So GP is claiming there were other plausible implementations of the same diabolically clever idea. So what.

      IMO, testing the null hypothesis shows that it is the idea of combining the religious text with the technical text that is the primary source of interest. To me, the Markov Chains seem to produce more lexically valid outputs, but does not seem to be the prime influence of the humor or revelation in unexpected aptness distribution. One use of the null hypothesis is to show the degree to which the researcher's methods are responsible for the results by providing different methods or explanations for the same or similar results.

  13. All praise the Omnissah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With this we are one step closer in our ability to commune with the Machine God.

  14. this is stupid mush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. appealing to those who really dont get the Bible at all, and who use computers a lot.. -0

  15. Re:Do it with the Koran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dare you.

    Oh, wait...

    Despite the nominally JEW owned media telling us that muslims are 'just like us', they will, of course, KILL you, if you do this with their 'magic book'.

    Fixed that for ya...

  16. WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck am i reading???

  17. Popeye by johnsie · · Score: 1

    I heard Jesus went to Mount Olive, but Popeye got pissed

  18. Reminds me of a classic from The Daily WTF: by default+luser · · Score: 1

    The Neural Network that creates prose!

    The pig go.
    Go is to the fountain.
    The pig put foot. Grunt.
    Foot in what? ketchup.

    The dove fly.
    Fly is in sky.
    The dove drop something.
    The something on the pig.

    The pig disgusting. The pig rattle.
    Rattle with dove.
    The dove angry.
    The pig leave.

    The dove produce.
    Produce is chicken wing.
    With wing bark.
    No Quack.

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.

  19. *cough* by rakslice · · Score: 1

    From the dedication of SICP:

    "[...] I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. [...]"

  20. Mark V Shaney was decades ago by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

    For crying out loud don't they teach kids any history these days?

    See http://glenda.cat-v.org/friends/mark-v-shaney/classics

    My personal favourite:

    I would like to be present everywhere

    Grace is the âoeupdateâ program, which simply issues a sync system call.

    Iâ(TM)ve received two pieces of email that imply that somebody recently posted the entire world with a flood, to remove all rational obstacles to believing something revealed by God.

    I have to pass a tuple containing the existing Unix technology. To do an outbound call you should be able to say that I believe that God wants him to set up an alternative mailbox for these files.

    If this is exactly the thrust of Larry McVoyâ(TM)s paper on âoeExtent Like Performance on a sysV f. s.â, he cannot have salvation, except in the production of the forgiveness of sins.

    I would like to be present everywhere.

    This is supported by Jesusâ(TM)s use of low cost eight bit micros and small amounts of RAM. When you find salvation.

    For the sinner deserves not life but death, according to the disk devices. For example, start with Plan 9, which is free of sin, the case is different from His perspective.

    The Roman Church has always been a part of a file system semantics.

    Grab the cat torture shit. Lets be real familiar with these braindead but safe solutions. We have to look further into this possible interpretation.

    Another trick to see how our inability to discern justice as an actual inconsistency in FORTRAN 77 by defining DO loops to work in the hope of generating few more responses.

    Female clergy are widely but not quite.

    I have modified the âoestandardâ Berkley ftpd to allow for various types of failures in Scripture.

    Thatâ(TM)s not very important, because the deception of one being good entails being loving, merciful, just, and many other names; one per symbolic link.

    Those who believe that something could be saved except the atoning sacrifice of Isaac, on the testimony of countless scientists who also most oppose the teachings of the statements that I call UNIX.

    ScienceFiction more or less predicts future pornography and homosexuality in the sovereignty of God.

    Wouldnâ(TM)t that mean that the Father too may live anew dev log to ftp after login?

    Probably first choice of block size on all of their salvation.

    If God truly loves humankind then why does He create sinners? If human is His creation, then who is the ultimate in all shells?

    I know at one point Jesus said âoeno one may come to grips with the cpio header blown awayâ.

    It speaks of the original ftpd.

    I am the resident Unix and open systems bigot so much like the resurrection of Jesus only.

    Geoff modified relaynews to write an essay on prayer.

    dvips for DVI files should run on the testimony of countless scientists who also most oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church through no fault of his posting, in which the idea that it passes the diagnostics.

    And I get real turned on by a good English translation of the Bible; because there is sufficient response I would want to change the nature of the points of Catholic theology would immediately have to be God and satan who is a free variable :â")

    Christian theology is not seek optimization, which the means pertain, as was said above

    Good. I am trying to keep binary compatibility with the possible exception of Sun Microsystems. Yet, because Sun is apparently seen as the closest Protestant Church to Catholicism.

    That observation doesnâ(TM)t get one anywhere. One might as well as the law as can be meritorious of life everlasting, but so as to heal the man page; if not, you can always use parens and braces.

    On a SVR4, I am interested in building a list of names and addresses to be in the name of Martin Luther, who led the religious reformatio

    --
    Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
    Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    1. Re: Mark V Shaney was decades ago by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      FFS it's bad enough that slashcode seems to be 7-bit ASCII only but it can't even do punctuation.... and they call themselves geeks/nerds what a load of old cobblers

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
  21. Verily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the child classes inherently begotten?

  22. Do this in Quran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and lets see how fun it will be and how brave can you be. ;)

  23. The Javascript Kinda Ruins It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you get rid of that tumblr popup shit on the right?

  24. What do you get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A mildly satirical result that obscures the fact that vast swathes of the populations of the world's most potentially destructive countries are still in some way massively over-influenced by books that would instantly be rejected by most mainstream publishers today as utter nonsense. Hilarious. Can't wait for "The Communist Manifesto and Developing Web 2.0 applicatons for Dummies" or "C# in 14 days which is just enough time to learn it before The Rapture and therefore prevent the old camel and eye of needle gotcha stopping you moving in an upwards direction"

  25. this is complex? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    Seriously?

    Managing a few variables in some order is complex? If this is actually news, I'm cringing on how low expectations of programmers have sunk.

    How many hurdles will the writer of this drek jump when managing a maiden name changing to a married name?

    In my databases there's just one.

    Take the time to design the back end. That way you don't need to worry about the tripe posted in the article.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:this is complex? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Updating the database is trivial. The annoyance for me is that people keep clicking 'reply' on emails, so you can never, ever close down the old address. You need to leave it redirecting forever, just in case someone outside the organisation isn't aware of the change. It's just ugly. Worse, the users tend to insist upon changing their usernames - something that tends to make Windows misbehave in weird and horrible ways, when registry keys that refer to usernames no longer refer correctly.

  26. Quaint by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Of the 40 or so example spews that I looked at, they mostly appeared to consist of a beginning that started in one work, and the ending which finished in the other... like two random sentences spliced together in a way that, at least around the words that they appear to have been joined on, made some degree of gramatical sense, even if the concept itself were absurd.

  27. woe to hice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goto blas.

  28. I've seen these rules before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to suspend students for making excessively long eye contact with someone of the opposite sex and has official rules (not just informal, they are written down in the rulebook) prohibiting such sinful activities as visiting the home of an unmarried person, dancing, visiting a cinema or being present in a mixed-sex group without an approved college chaperone....

    Interesting. That's pretty much Sharia Law. They should get on very well with the Iranians...

  29. Time for that old COBOL instruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perform sex varying position until man unequal to task...

    (that dates me a bit...)

  30. Oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author of Losethos / TempleOS is at it again.

  31. St Silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    praise be to the Giver 0f Data !

    "for in and out, above, below,
    'Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-Show,
    Play'd in a Box whose CRT is the Sun,
    Round which we Binary Figures
    come and go. "

    Our program who
    art in memory,
    Hello be thy name;
    thy Operating system come,
    thy commands be done ,
    on the printer as they are on the screen.
    Give us this day our daily Data,
    & forgive our I/O Errors,
    as we forgive those whose Logic Circuits are faulty;
    and lead us not into frustration,
    but deliver us from Power Surges;
    for Thine is the Algorithm,
    and the Application,
    and the Solution,
    looping for ever & ever.

    Return

  32. The first "GO TO" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...was executed by voice recognition at the Tower of Babel.

    Genesis 11:4
              And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (KJV)

  33. In the beginning ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 2

    ... there was 0, and God said, "Let there be 1".

    1. Re:In the beginning ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with sign, and the Word was 8 bits.

  34. It is like drunk texting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you are drunk, when the mind is gone. The intention of the original author or authors in communicating their ideas is lost in the noise. These trees have the appearance of meaning, but the meanings of the original authors are both lost in this.

    It might be more useful to combine texts whose purposes and ideas are less distant - a shorter hamming distance within this space. "The Lord of the Rings" and "How Life Immitates Chess" to see if the character are meant to represent chess pieces or possibly music pieces. Something like this might be pretty good at taking two old musical ideas and synthesizing them to make a new musical idea.

    -mrm

  35. How about just reading and believing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you just read the book and believe what it says, that Jesus is the Son of God, you get eternal life. The formula is this: if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you are saved. Because with the heart man believes and is justified, and with the mouth he confesses and is saved.

    1. Re:How about just reading and believing by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Having just read through the New Testament and the first half-ish of the Old (to Ruth), I'm now left wondering what color the sky is on the biblical-literalist world.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  36. Re:Do it with the Koran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Despite the JEW owned media telling us that muslims are 'just like us'

    Why would Jews, the self-described "chosen people," want everyone to think Muslims are "just like us"? Your conspiracy hypothesis makes no sense.

  37. Divine Stacktrace by Fallso · · Score: 1

    In the name of the father, the son, and the holy segfault...

  38. New paradigm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The promotes the algorithm method of birth control.