oh my fucking god I don't know what to think any more.
C++ and Python merging you say? But only in order implement a better Ruby interpreter running PHP web sites in enterprise deployments in foriegn nations behind a firewall that's being upgraded to OS/2 machines.
Pardon?
Where am I again? Oh, I would love to see the look on Microsoft's face.
Even the concerns about things like endianness are not really a problem so long as the code was written the right way in the first place.
you mean, "using Emacs as your editor?"
Sorry. Sorry!
Yes... things always work if done the right way.
I share your lack of surprise about Mathematica if you'll share my lack of surprise that a lot of things will not port smoothly. (especially that endian thing).
well, your mind collected information somehow, but it was not by perception.
The data was deduced from the LACK of perception. The point is that it is deduced by the mind. The mind might also deduce other possibilities, e.g. the receiving device is malfunctioning or is turned off. These alternate possibilities depend on extra facts which feed into a deduction which then presents itself as if it were a perception.
That's pretty odd. How much of our perception is really deductions?
the use of "collect" make a double meaning, the mind does end up with information.
The point is just that the color black proves that the information is deduced. You don't really collect it in a strict sense, you deduce it from lack of collection. And all vision is deduced that that amazing optical illusion illustrates.
I have decided the whole image is fully a deduction and reconstruction of what is around us because of the fact that each eye collects a 2D image but we feel as though we "percieve" a very 3D world around us. Or the way the mind creates an illusion to fill the optic nerve spot on the back of the eye. It's great stuff.
if you have a meter, and it reads 0, it did not collect information. You infer there is no information, and call that black, that is an inference, not a perception.
Perception is when you actually collect some information.
The way in which you stubbornly miss this is point is the justification of continuing to explain it this way.
these "expose" type funny science ha ha bull shit.
Sometimes the obvious questions give suprising answers... sometimes the obvious questions need research before people listen (e.g. the research about side effects in drugs, you have to have something like that if you are going to argue that all medical students are trained to give this advice to their patients and not assume).
I always remember one of the first "dumb science" things I ever heard when I was a kid. How stupid science had studied the sex life of the tse tse fly. How stupid! And with little babies to feed in the world!
What a stupid thing to study? Who cares if tse tse flies can get it up... or what sex toys they prefer.
I thought that obvious... or is it only obvious to RMS?
Anyone around for more than 5 years have had vendors go out of business or be bought by competitors and killed off... it's like being a carpenter and finding out there won't be any more hammers.
yes yes, but I invoke the same cynical appeal to the obvious to say... of course a FORK is going to generate complaints, especially in the case of the forker being a corporate forker.
that's due to the fact that you are looking through two different quantum tubes through each machine... and one of the sites is a few minutes in the future.
normally you can percieve these effects, but open source is entirely different.
Slashdot Mirror
since Intelligent Design is running the universe, I'm sure it'll make the fake science turn out for the best.
oh my fucking god I don't know what to think any more.
C++ and Python merging you say? But only in order implement a better Ruby interpreter running PHP web sites in enterprise deployments in foriegn nations behind a firewall that's being upgraded to OS/2 machines.
Pardon?
Where am I again? Oh, I would love to see the look on Microsoft's face.
Um.
If it had a face. Damn faceless thing.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-963937.html?tag=lh
I've wondered how that turned out. I didn't read any disaster stories... did I miss them?
Even the concerns about things like endianness are not really a problem so long as the code was written the right way in the first place.
you mean, "using Emacs as your editor?"
Sorry. Sorry!
Yes... things always work if done the right way.
I share your lack of surprise about Mathematica if you'll share my lack of surprise that a lot of things will not port smoothly. (especially that endian thing).
now that hell has frozen over this is the least of our problems... there are a lot of odd things bound to happen now!
-stunned
well, your mind collected information somehow, but it was not by perception.
The data was deduced from the LACK of perception. The point is that it is deduced by the mind. The mind might also deduce other possibilities, e.g. the receiving device is malfunctioning or is turned off. These alternate possibilities depend on extra facts which feed into a deduction which then presents itself as if it were a perception.
That's pretty odd. How much of our perception is really deductions?
you scared the shit out of me.
I thought you had gone insane... and right after I had deified you.
I'm thinking of going into cogsci now but not until after I change my fucking pants.
btw, I just checked the image myself because I masked it with my hand and it still looked different, but the Gimp proved the proof in the image.
the use of "collect" make a double meaning, the mind does end up with information.
The point is just that the color black proves that the information is deduced. You don't really collect it in a strict sense, you deduce it from lack of collection. And all vision is deduced that that amazing optical illusion illustrates.
I have decided the whole image is fully a deduction and reconstruction of what is around us because of the fact that each eye collects a 2D image but we feel as though we "percieve" a very 3D world around us. Or the way the mind creates an illusion to fill the optic nerve spot on the back of the eye. It's great stuff.
that is one of the most amazing optical illusions I've ever seen... and I've seen many.
thanks a lot.
you're the one overstating.
if you have a meter, and it reads 0, it did not collect information. You infer there is no information, and call that black, that is an inference, not a perception.
Perception is when you actually collect some information.
The way in which you stubbornly miss this is point is the justification of continuing to explain it this way.
please stop posting.
just kidding... fascinating subject.
these "expose" type funny science ha ha bull shit.
Sometimes the obvious questions give suprising answers... sometimes the obvious questions need research before people listen (e.g. the research about side effects in drugs, you have to have something like that if you are going to argue that all medical students are trained to give this advice to their patients and not assume).
I always remember one of the first "dumb science" things I ever heard when I was a kid. How stupid science had studied the sex life of the tse tse fly. How stupid! And with little babies to feed in the world!
What a stupid thing to study? Who cares if tse tse flies can get it up... or what sex toys they prefer.
Oh, but there is malaria.
back in the day when you turned 15 1/2 they just gave you a permit and said "if you can find an adult stupid enough to ride with you, go for it!"
then we became great drivers.
and we used to have a stick in the car to shift with!
(actually I still do)
whoops.
darn!
well try explaining the battle between Eliza vs. Alice!
she'll be totally lost!
but please don't even try to start on emacs vs vi because... well, emacs is better that's why.
because of that comment.
but just for a week, I'm a little bit spiritually fickle.
for example, the wheel, which is why I've invented the square.
And also, the computer... fucking things ancient... hello! I use the Plumation Machine instead because it's knew knew new!
I'm pretty sure whatever is next will be put on top of relational databases... rather than screw with decades of optimizations.
but SQL does suck. Really. not because it's old. it always sucked.
posted at a web log.
you have just made the world that much better!
it's all no different then when you could put your idea on a piece of paper and hand it to your friend, except being more accessible.
and that makes a big, but not fundamental, difference.
political blogging is more communal than what you are thinking of.
left example: dailykos.com
central example: tacitus.org
right example: redstate.org
... oh fuck it.
now I'll have to pay to hear where Chalabi says WMD are! oh no!
nor startled.
I thought that obvious... or is it only obvious to RMS?
Anyone around for more than 5 years have had vendors go out of business or be bought by competitors and killed off... it's like being a carpenter and finding out there won't be any more hammers.
yes yes, but I invoke the same cynical appeal to the obvious to say... of course a FORK is going to generate complaints, especially in the case of the forker being a corporate forker.
forking forkers!
(xemacs is still better)
that's due to the fact that you are looking through two different quantum tubes through each machine... and one of the sites is a few minutes in the future.
normally you can percieve these effects, but open source is entirely different.