is something which translates as "banalisation", or "trivialisation" of the Holocaust. To treat Nazi regalia as merely amusing bric-a-brac to be collected and traded as if they were Pez dispensers is an affront to Holocaust victims, and it is one from which the French government has decided that they deserve to be protected.
Ok, there is a vast amount of wrong comment going round on this subject, so here is an actual explanation of what happened.
First, Yahoo are offering a service into France, so they are *bound to observe French law*, *so far as it is possible*. Two important clauses there. In the first place, the fact that Yahoo is an American company is irrelevant. They are offering a service into France, so their physical location matters for liability purposes no more than Exxon's company head office in Delaware matters when one of their tankers spills oil all over SouthEast Asia or something. The test for whether they are "offering a service into" France is a complicated one (it's most usually relevant for tax purposes), but it's a fairly settled body of law. If Yahoo were merely offering a service that French citizens happened to be able to pick up, things might be different, but the existence of yahoo.fr means that this particular train left some time ago.
Right, that's cleared up. Now, secondly, it's an important principle that the law does not compel anyone to do the impossible. If there were genuinely nothing that Yahoo could do, a French court would never fine them. It would end up simply ruling that they could not offer the service in France (reread what is meant by "offering a service" above). In fact, the judgement sets out a number of things that Yahoo could have done but refused to do.
The facts of the case are interesting in themselves. Yahoo removed the Nazi auctions from yahoo.fr, but placed a link reading "If you want to research more about this subject, please visit yahoo.com". This seems a bit blatant to me; they were attempting to comply with the letter rather than the spirit of the ruling and ended up complying with neither. Of course, it's the letter rather than the spirit of the law which is binding, but Yahoo seemingly got bad advice on whether they had done enough, and ended up needlessly annoying the court.
Second, the court ruled that Yahoo could and should have set up their site so as to refuse requests from French IP addresses or which came from clickthroughs from yahoo.fr. Yahoo's defence against this (a similar line of argument is implied in the article above) was that such a ban would be easy to circumvent using an anonymiser. This misses the point. The point is that someone who goes to the trouble of using an anonymiser and avoiding yahoo.fr, is pretty clearly intentionally buying Nazi regalia in the knowledge that it is illegal to do so in France. Someone who just goes through a link saying "to research this further..." has a pretty good chance of being able to claim that they did not know that they were doing anything wrong, but just happened to surf through. By not putting up even token barriers which require any effort at all to circumvent, Yahoo was effectively providing an alibi for French Nazis. This, in the eyes of the court, pretty much implicated them in intentionally offering a service dealing Nazi regalia in France.
Finally, Yahoo could have put a banner on the appropriate pages warning that material was made available which was against the law of France, but refused to do so. I have absolutely no fucking idea why they refused this one, but I suspect that they just wanted to play hardball in the hope that a patriotic American court would put down an order against the French court making the fine unenforceable.
So that's what happened in France. The French were not demanding the impossible; they were asking for a show of good faith, which Yahoo refused to give them.
Furthermore, nobody seems to have wondered whether Yahoo's decision to get out of the Nazi regalia business was not a purely commercial decision. It certainly did not generate any really favourable publicity, and they may have received legal advice that they couldn't rely on the protection of the American court. There was certainly an avenue open to them which would have allowed them to keep on selling regalia to Americans (NB: They Didn't! and quite clearly said so in their terms of service) while satisfying the French courts. If Yahoo wanted to avoid making a test case for the feasibility of local internet regulation, that was their choice, not that of the French.
In conclusion, the assumption running through 80% of this thread -- that this case is anything to do with the French attempting to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction -- is incorrect.
For Christ's sake. None of you speak Japanese, so why do you want a Japanese soundtrack? In fact, how do you even know you've got a Japanese soundtrack? For all you know, that noise you hear could be a pair of Disney executives saying "fuck you, DMCA rules, intellectual property forever, round-eyed fuckers" in Korean.
Think about this. You are, quite literally, whining over the fact that comebody dared to dub.... a cartoon. A fucking cartoon. It is stupid enough to whine about subtitles vs. dubbing when the context is a film with actual actors, where there is a variety of nuance to the performance which might be lost in translation. To do the same thing over a cartoon, worse, a specific style of cartoon which erases facial details and animates to the crudest, jerkiest standard possible, is purely asinine. Or do you think that the little flat people provide all the voices themselves?
Jebus Christmas, this is the dumbest fucking obsession in the whole "geek" pantheon. Far worse than Star Trek. The only people stupider than the anime obsessives are the fucking neopagans, and that's saying something.
Because the software is explicitly designed to facilitate piracy, of course! Ingenious, technically aware software pirates have access to all sorts of whizzy ways to steal other people's creations. The mass market, however, tends to be more or less honest unless provided with a perfect, userfriendly theft tool.
yes, I was wondering, and wouldn't have realised if you hadn't told me. Put it this way, if Will Smith ever comes over to your house with a sack full of "your momma" jokes, just try to ignore him and sidle away.
You clearly do, and so did my interlocutor. The matter at issue at that point was what "serious researchers" did or did not defend. They do defend the role of metaphysics and do not defend the Turing Test. I called someone on a point of bullshit.
Turing made a good step by suggesting that we define intelligence as a behavioral trait
He made a step. It wasn't a "good step", as it suggested as a criterion of intelligence a property which could be staisfied by a canonically non-intelligent entity (a look-up table). There are numerous behaviourists (going back to Hobbes) who don't agree with Turing Tests in any case, so this couldn't have been his original contribution. In any case, Locke anticipated the Turing Test by about two hundred years, when he discussed whether a talking animal would have to be accepted as human.
Noone has really had any better way of defining it...at least, you haven't suggested one yet
The universe is not under any obligation to provide definitions. The fact that the only definitions suggested have been utterly unsatisfactory may mean that no definition is possible, or that the question is wrongly posed or illusory. It's not necessarily a good thing to do to go running around proliferating bad solutions.
Actually, I'm an agnostic on this matter. I don't think the Turing Test is relevant to anything, and I don't believe that finite state automata can ever be considered sentient (because of the problem of word/world links), but I don't have a firm opinion on whether consciousness is a necessary condition of sentience, or whether a machine which was not a finite state automaton could be conscious or sentient.
The problem you note in your second paragraph is indeed a tricky one; however, I have to say that the universe is under no obligation to provide us with any test at all for whether something is intelligent.
I can see we're going to have to start calling you Sherlock. My assertion is that "the Turing test is useless because it could be passed by a look-up table, and look-up tables can't be intelligent".
To "test" whether something is intelligent is a category-mistake in any case. Whether something is sentient (which is implied by the interesting sense of "intelligent") is a metaphysical question.
Because you can't interpret a meaningless response as intelligent. To attribute intelligence to something is to treat its responses as meaning something.
A look-up table can't be considered as intelligent because it is a look-up table, not for any other reason.
The answer to your third question is that the machine might or might not be intelligent, but the test you suggest proves nothing either way.
You mean I have no recourse to answering this question apart from metaphysics?
How were you hoping to find the answer to a metaphysical question?
No serious researcher gets bothers to defend metaphysics anymore
Let's play a game. You name one serious philosopher that you've had a long conversation on this subject with, then I'll name two serious cognitive researchers that I've had a long conversation on this subject with. First one to run out of names loses. You go first.
You are arguing that because it cannot always come up with an intelligent response, it is not intelligent
No. I'm not. I'm arguing that it can never come up with an intelligent response, because none of its responses are meaningful, because they do not have the correct "word/world link". Even if it could, always, in every case (per impossibile, of course, if I am allowed to ask questions about real numbers) come back with something that appeared to be an intelligent response, I would still say that in no case did it ever come up with something that was an intelligent response.
No more "It's not feasible", or "You would be able to tell the difference"
Since I have never made any such claim, I don't know who you're addressing.
. If to all the tests you apply and that can be applied, it appears to be intelligent, is it?
No.
If not, why?
Because it is a look-up table and therefore there are no necessary connections between the words in its responses and their referents.
I suspect a simple analysis (DNA or other chemical analysis) would determine what I was eating.
You are more wrong than you can possibly imagine being. For a start "duck" is not something which is given to us by nature -- it's a taxonomic term. To give a Turing-style operational definition of "duck" in terms of DNA, you would need (1) a canonical duck DNA sequence, by reference to which all other ducks would be judged (2) a stipulation about how different from the canonical duck a given DNA sequence could be, and still be a duck and (3) a measure of what "different" meant in this context; which similarities and differences mattered.
You mmight be able to get away with an arbitary stipulation in this case, though it would almost certainly defeat you to define "duck" in the Chinese chef's sense (as opposed to the naturalist's). But it's ludicrous to expect to be allowed to get away with a similar move in the case of sentience, which everyone has direct experience of, and which, unlike ducks, is an irreducible concept given to us by nature.
No, because it just happened to be. You're really going need to be clear about the meaning of a "necessary condition" if we're going to avoid talking at cross purposes.
When you were a kid, you didn't know shit about the world. The teacher passed out pointed out green leaves and you, in your infantile mind, saw no necessity for it to be so. Now having learnt about chlorophyll, you do.
So were you unintelligent before? After?
No, you're not getting it. Your concept of "chlorophyll" is necessarily connected to chlorophyll because of a causal chain of events between the set of objects which are chlorophyll and the idea of it in your brain. And it has to be that way. The lookup table's entry for chlorophyll might or might not be causally related to the set of objects which are chlorophyll, but certainly don't have to be in any systematic way. Therefore, the lookup table is just a lookup table, and its set of ordered pairs cannot be interpreted as meaningful utterances.
There are more promising arguments for artificial intelligence, but surely there must be something intuitively wrong to you about a criterion of intelligence that doesn't distinguish between human beings and lookup tables?
what are you talking about? That link is to the homepage of Professor Gregory M Chaitin, who I hope most of the readers here will have heard of. You clearly haven't. Sucks to be you. I was doing the "you're just trolling" troll before you were born, laddie.
No, it is not necessary, as I have a severed spinal cord. (not really). But this isn't going to get you anywhere. Jerked knees don't refer to anything and knee jerking isn't meaningful.
"Not a lot of people know this", but the Turing Computability Theorem, as stated in the original 1948 paper, has a fairly serious logical error (at a crucial stage, Turing equivocates on the interpretation of "terminate", bringing in an unproven premise). It took fifty years for Greg Chaitin to prove the missing step and put algorithmic theory back onto a sound logical footing.
I wouldn't exactly say "fool", though, although I agree with you on the asinine nature of his writings on machine intelligence. He did crack Enigma, afterall.
And how do you distinguish between this "remembering" and "true intelligence"?
Ludicrous. Looking up call-response pairs in a huge table is not intelligence. "How can you distinguish" is a ludicrous defence; if your interlocutor is a computer, you *know* whether it is doing this, or whether it is generating responses.
The point is that ordered pairs in a look-up table have no necessary connection to one another, so they cannot be taken as referring to one another. Therefore, the computer's replies in this case have no reference, therefore no content, therefore no meaning. Responses which do not mean anything are not evidence of intelligence.
If it smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, looks like a duck, and cannot be distinguished from a duck in any way, is it a duck? I would say yes.
Then you should probably avoid cheap Chinese restaurants.
An operational definition of whether something is intelligent is quite obviously absurd on the face of it, and the ability to fool an interlocutor is an astoundly poor operational test in any case. Being sentient is a metaphysical property with no necessary causal role; therefore any definition of it which refers to a causal role (a fortiori, any operational definition) defines a property by reference to something which is not necessarily true of all things which possess that property.
Operational definitions are fine for "placeholder" terms of science, but intelligence isn't one of them.
By the way, no serious AI researcher bothers to defend the Turing test these days. You're fighting a battle which was lost twenty years ago.
The box doesn't know Chinese. Of course it can't. Without the man, the box is just a box. If anything knows Chinese, the man has to. Searle covers this potential response in his original article, which proves that you haven't read it.
As you can see, you haven't been able to convince me that you know the first fucking thing about artificial intelligence, therefore by your own test you don't.
Hold it right there. Neither you nor ESR is "fighting" anything. Your lives are not on the line, and you insult genuine freedom fighters by pretending they are.
The correct term for you and Eric Raymond would be "freedom whiner"
a) Whatever the growth rate of the economy
b) On the assumption of a sensible, 2.5% growth rate c) Only if you assume a growth rate of 1% per year.
Answer c)
Bush's plan is to invest contributions in the stock market instead. If we assume a 1% growth in GDP, the stock market will:
a) continue on upwards through the roof, forever
b) Deliver anything close to the historic long term return of 10% which people typically use in these comparisons c) Return at most 1%, since the market can't grow faster than the economy in the long term, at worst have negative returns since it's already so high
Answer c).
Most people my age understand enough basic economics to realize that they are more likely to see a flying saucer than a Social Security check.
"Basic economics" can sometimes teach you the durndest things. Slightly more advanced economics often tells you that it ain't necessarily so.
he's stated publicly that he doesn't consider Wicca a religion
If that's true, it's about the only sensible thing he's said ever. Wicca isn't a religion, it's a load of made-up mumbo-jumbo which a bunch of long-haired fruits have managed to convince themselves has any basis in history or myth.
Of course, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed for soldiers. In fact, Wicca should be given equal protection with any other religion -- none. The only point I'm making is that Wicca is considerably more fucking stupid than Christianity, because all of its practitioners are intelligent enough to realise it's a load of rubbish, but choose not to.
None of the mathematics was invented by them, and they do not claim copyright on it. All the mathematical information on that site was available elsewhere for free.
Oh, you mean that you want all the math assembled in one place, with a nice, clear, explanation of all the difficult bits? Well, how would sir be proposing to pay for that monumental task?
Slashdot Mirror
is something which translates as "banalisation", or "trivialisation" of the Holocaust. To treat Nazi regalia as merely amusing bric-a-brac to be collected and traded as if they were Pez dispensers is an affront to Holocaust victims, and it is one from which the French government has decided that they deserve to be protected.
First, Yahoo are offering a service into France, so they are *bound to observe French law*, *so far as it is possible*. Two important clauses there. In the first place, the fact that Yahoo is an American company is irrelevant. They are offering a service into France, so their physical location matters for liability purposes no more than Exxon's company head office in Delaware matters when one of their tankers spills oil all over SouthEast Asia or something. The test for whether they are "offering a service into" France is a complicated one (it's most usually relevant for tax purposes), but it's a fairly settled body of law. If Yahoo were merely offering a service that French citizens happened to be able to pick up, things might be different, but the existence of yahoo.fr means that this particular train left some time ago.
Right, that's cleared up. Now, secondly, it's an important principle that the law does not compel anyone to do the impossible. If there were genuinely nothing that Yahoo could do, a French court would never fine them. It would end up simply ruling that they could not offer the service in France (reread what is meant by "offering a service" above). In fact, the judgement sets out a number of things that Yahoo could have done but refused to do.
The facts of the case are interesting in themselves. Yahoo removed the Nazi auctions from yahoo.fr, but placed a link reading "If you want to research more about this subject, please visit yahoo.com". This seems a bit blatant to me; they were attempting to comply with the letter rather than the spirit of the ruling and ended up complying with neither. Of course, it's the letter rather than the spirit of the law which is binding, but Yahoo seemingly got bad advice on whether they had done enough, and ended up needlessly annoying the court.
Second, the court ruled that Yahoo could and should have set up their site so as to refuse requests from French IP addresses or which came from clickthroughs from yahoo.fr. Yahoo's defence against this (a similar line of argument is implied in the article above) was that such a ban would be easy to circumvent using an anonymiser. This misses the point. The point is that someone who goes to the trouble of using an anonymiser and avoiding yahoo.fr, is pretty clearly intentionally buying Nazi regalia in the knowledge that it is illegal to do so in France. Someone who just goes through a link saying "to research this further ..." has a pretty good chance of being able to claim that they did not know that they were doing anything wrong, but just happened to surf through. By not putting up even token barriers which require any effort at all to circumvent, Yahoo was effectively providing an alibi for French Nazis. This, in the eyes of the court, pretty much implicated them in intentionally offering a service dealing Nazi regalia in France.
Finally, Yahoo could have put a banner on the appropriate pages warning that material was made available which was against the law of France, but refused to do so. I have absolutely no fucking idea why they refused this one, but I suspect that they just wanted to play hardball in the hope that a patriotic American court would put down an order against the French court making the fine unenforceable.
So that's what happened in France. The French were not demanding the impossible; they were asking for a show of good faith, which Yahoo refused to give them.
Furthermore, nobody seems to have wondered whether Yahoo's decision to get out of the Nazi regalia business was not a purely commercial decision. It certainly did not generate any really favourable publicity, and they may have received legal advice that they couldn't rely on the protection of the American court. There was certainly an avenue open to them which would have allowed them to keep on selling regalia to Americans (NB: They Didn't! and quite clearly said so in their terms of service) while satisfying the French courts. If Yahoo wanted to avoid making a test case for the feasibility of local internet regulation, that was their choice, not that of the French.
In conclusion, the assumption running through 80% of this thread -- that this case is anything to do with the French attempting to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction -- is incorrect.
Think about this. You are, quite literally, whining over the fact that comebody dared to dub .... a cartoon. A fucking cartoon. It is stupid enough to whine about subtitles vs. dubbing when the context is a film with actual actors, where there is a variety of nuance to the performance which might be lost in translation. To do the same thing over a cartoon, worse, a specific style of cartoon which erases facial details and animates to the crudest, jerkiest standard possible, is purely asinine. Or do you think that the little flat people provide all the voices themselves?
Jebus Christmas, this is the dumbest fucking obsession in the whole "geek" pantheon. Far worse than Star Trek. The only people stupider than the anime obsessives are the fucking neopagans, and that's saying something.
Because the software is explicitly designed to facilitate piracy, of course! Ingenious, technically aware software pirates have access to all sorts of whizzy ways to steal other people's creations. The mass market, however, tends to be more or less honest unless provided with a perfect, userfriendly theft tool.
yes, I was wondering, and wouldn't have realised if you hadn't told me. Put it this way, if Will Smith ever comes over to your house with a sack full of "your momma" jokes, just try to ignore him and sidle away.
No, my point is that in an objectivist society, nobody would have heard of Objectivism, as Rand's books are so fucking bad.
As neat a reductio ad absurdum of Obectivism as anyone could reasonably ask for.
You clearly do, and so did my interlocutor. The matter at issue at that point was what "serious researchers" did or did not defend. They do defend the role of metaphysics and do not defend the Turing Test. I called someone on a point of bullshit.
Turing made a good step by suggesting that we define intelligence as a behavioral trait
He made a step. It wasn't a "good step", as it suggested as a criterion of intelligence a property which could be staisfied by a canonically non-intelligent entity (a look-up table). There are numerous behaviourists (going back to Hobbes) who don't agree with Turing Tests in any case, so this couldn't have been his original contribution. In any case, Locke anticipated the Turing Test by about two hundred years, when he discussed whether a talking animal would have to be accepted as human.
Noone has really had any better way of defining it...at least, you haven't suggested one yet
The universe is not under any obligation to provide definitions. The fact that the only definitions suggested have been utterly unsatisfactory may mean that no definition is possible, or that the question is wrongly posed or illusory. It's not necessarily a good thing to do to go running around proliferating bad solutions.
The problem you note in your second paragraph is indeed a tricky one; however, I have to say that the universe is under no obligation to provide us with any test at all for whether something is intelligent.
I can see we're going to have to start calling you Sherlock. My assertion is that "the Turing test is useless because it could be passed by a look-up table, and look-up tables can't be intelligent".
To "test" whether something is intelligent is a category-mistake in any case. Whether something is sentient (which is implied by the interesting sense of "intelligent") is a metaphysical question.
In that case, it was being used in an entirely question-begging sense.
A look-up table can't be considered as intelligent because it is a look-up table, not for any other reason.
The answer to your third question is that the machine might or might not be intelligent, but the test you suggest proves nothing either way.
How were you hoping to find the answer to a metaphysical question?
No serious researcher gets bothers to defend metaphysics anymore
Let's play a game. You name one serious philosopher that you've had a long conversation on this subject with, then I'll name two serious cognitive researchers that I've had a long conversation on this subject with. First one to run out of names loses. You go first.
No. I'm not. I'm arguing that it can never come up with an intelligent response, because none of its responses are meaningful, because they do not have the correct "word/world link". Even if it could, always, in every case (per impossibile, of course, if I am allowed to ask questions about real numbers) come back with something that appeared to be an intelligent response, I would still say that in no case did it ever come up with something that was an intelligent response.
No more "It's not feasible", or "You would be able to tell the difference"
Since I have never made any such claim, I don't know who you're addressing.
. If to all the tests you apply and that can be applied, it appears to be intelligent, is it?
No.
If not, why?
Because it is a look-up table and therefore there are no necessary connections between the words in its responses and their referents.
I suspect a simple analysis (DNA or other chemical analysis) would determine what I was eating.
You are more wrong than you can possibly imagine being. For a start "duck" is not something which is given to us by nature -- it's a taxonomic term. To give a Turing-style operational definition of "duck" in terms of DNA, you would need (1) a canonical duck DNA sequence, by reference to which all other ducks would be judged (2) a stipulation about how different from the canonical duck a given DNA sequence could be, and still be a duck and (3) a measure of what "different" meant in this context; which similarities and differences mattered.
You mmight be able to get away with an arbitary stipulation in this case, though it would almost certainly defeat you to define "duck" in the Chinese chef's sense (as opposed to the naturalist's). But it's ludicrous to expect to be allowed to get away with a similar move in the case of sentience, which everyone has direct experience of, and which, unlike ducks, is an irreducible concept given to us by nature.
No, because it just happened to be. You're really going need to be clear about the meaning of a "necessary condition" if we're going to avoid talking at cross purposes.
When you were a kid, you didn't know shit about the world. The teacher passed out pointed out green leaves and you, in your infantile mind, saw no necessity for it to be so. Now having learnt about chlorophyll, you do. So were you unintelligent before? After?
No, you're not getting it. Your concept of "chlorophyll" is necessarily connected to chlorophyll because of a causal chain of events between the set of objects which are chlorophyll and the idea of it in your brain. And it has to be that way. The lookup table's entry for chlorophyll might or might not be causally related to the set of objects which are chlorophyll, but certainly don't have to be in any systematic way. Therefore, the lookup table is just a lookup table, and its set of ordered pairs cannot be interpreted as meaningful utterances.
There are more promising arguments for artificial intelligence, but surely there must be something intuitively wrong to you about a criterion of intelligence that doesn't distinguish between human beings and lookup tables?
what are you talking about? That link is to the homepage of Professor Gregory M Chaitin, who I hope most of the readers here will have heard of. You clearly haven't. Sucks to be you. I was doing the "you're just trolling" troll before you were born, laddie.
No, it is not necessary, as I have a severed spinal cord. (not really). But this isn't going to get you anywhere. Jerked knees don't refer to anything and knee jerking isn't meaningful.
I wouldn't exactly say "fool", though, although I agree with you on the asinine nature of his writings on machine intelligence. He did crack Enigma, afterall.
Ludicrous. Looking up call-response pairs in a huge table is not intelligence. "How can you distinguish" is a ludicrous defence; if your interlocutor is a computer, you *know* whether it is doing this, or whether it is generating responses.
The point is that ordered pairs in a look-up table have no necessary connection to one another, so they cannot be taken as referring to one another. Therefore, the computer's replies in this case have no reference, therefore no content, therefore no meaning. Responses which do not mean anything are not evidence of intelligence.
If it smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, looks like a duck, and cannot be distinguished from a duck in any way, is it a duck? I would say yes.
Then you should probably avoid cheap Chinese restaurants.
Operational definitions are fine for "placeholder" terms of science, but intelligence isn't one of them.
By the way, no serious AI researcher bothers to defend the Turing test these days. You're fighting a battle which was lost twenty years ago.
As you can see, you haven't been able to convince me that you know the first fucking thing about artificial intelligence, therefore by your own test you don't.
Hold it right there. Neither you nor ESR is "fighting" anything. Your lives are not on the line, and you insult genuine freedom fighters by pretending they are.
The correct term for you and Eric Raymond would be "freedom whiner"
Bush's plan is to invest contributions in the stock market instead. If we assume a 1% growth in GDP, the stock market will:
Answer c).Most people my age understand enough basic economics to realize that they are more likely to see a flying saucer than a Social Security check.
"Basic economics" can sometimes teach you the durndest things. Slightly more advanced economics often tells you that it ain't necessarily so.
If that's true, it's about the only sensible thing he's said ever. Wicca isn't a religion, it's a load of made-up mumbo-jumbo which a bunch of long-haired fruits have managed to convince themselves has any basis in history or myth.
Of course, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed for soldiers. In fact, Wicca should be given equal protection with any other religion -- none. The only point I'm making is that Wicca is considerably more fucking stupid than Christianity, because all of its practitioners are intelligent enough to realise it's a load of rubbish, but choose not to.
Oh, you mean that you want all the math assembled in one place, with a nice, clear, explanation of all the difficult bits? Well, how would sir be proposing to pay for that monumental task?