00:08:29 -!- staplegun has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.78.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.8/2007100816]"). 00:34:23 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 01:26:03 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection). 01:43:37 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 02:29:44 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 02:32:56 -!- Sgeo has joined. 03:51:42 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:52:25 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 03:52:35 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:53:18 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 03:55:08 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:55:41 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 03:56:37 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:57:55 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 04:01:45 I've had some really odd dreams 04:02:07 Has anyone had one where you take yourself apart? 04:02:11 I've had a Volkswagen Bug try to eat my in one of my dreams. 04:02:12 O.o 04:02:38 I had a really creepy one where I was basically pulling the muscles and tendons out of my hand, and another one involving teeth 04:03:37 in retrospect, dreams are rarely if ever anatomically correct, but it doesn't make it any less creepy 04:04:24 Yeah. . . 04:04:33 Why the hell would a VW Bug have teeth? 04:05:51 something about staring at your crumpled up hand and just knowing it's nothing but skin over bone, seeping blood out of the cuticles... and then you wake up. 04:06:14 hawt 04:11:06 yup 04:15:13 i wish i remembered my dreams 04:31:40 I'd say I recall dreams about 30% of the time 04:32:47 For me, it's more like 0.0001% of the time. 04:33:05 That dream was from when I was about 5. . . And it's the last dream I remember, I think. 04:34:16 i used to have recurring dreams when i was little 04:34:31 the other day i had a dream in one of the old recurring settigns! 04:34:52 interesting 04:35:12 most of the recurers were nightmares 04:35:57 I've thought about dream interpretation from time to time, but I've found I can generally explain my dreams when taking into account the events of the past few days and what was on my mind when I went to sleep 04:36:29 it's like a jumbled-up version of your recent memories, stitched into something that appears coherent at the surface level 04:36:41 it's easy to find a meaning when there is none 04:37:14 oh damn this song is good 04:37:33 Another thought has occurred to me- are dreams just an artifact of our brain's natural garbage-collection and memory storage processes, or do dreams themselves have an evolutionary benefit? 04:37:34 Airheadz - Stanley (Here I Am) 04:38:56 Perhaps their ability to provide insight into new approaches to problems by separating ideas from context is a reason for their existence? 04:38:56 i don't think dreams would be an artifact of garbage collection 04:39:00 RodgerTheGreat: I'd say that the evolutionary benefit *is* the garbage-collection. 04:39:32 so many people don't remember their dreams i would say they have no purpose 04:39:38 hm 04:39:56 and no evolutionary disadvantages, so no reason to not have them 04:42:34 but that is rather unsatisfying 04:42:58 true 04:45:34 Maybe it's more difficult to defrag recent memories *without* causing dreams as a side-effect, so the mechanisms that usually cause people to forget dreams act as some kind of patch to that behavior? 04:46:11 kind of an ugly hack 04:46:29 wouldn't it be better just to turn off the visual part of your brain? 04:46:44 nature is best at making ugly hacks first, and then slowly smoothing out the rough edges 04:46:45 sensoral rather 04:48:04 current knowledge of the brain suggests that there isn't a really convenient way to shut off all sensory input (which would really involve shutting down *consciousness*) without some tricky biochemical footwork 04:51:58 consciousness is a sensory input? 04:52:56 RodgerTheGreat: Technically, *sleep* is a loss of consciousness. 04:53:12 pikhq: it might be 04:53:30 memory and consciousness are intertwined in very interesting ways 04:54:12 meh 04:54:45 it's hard to argue about the physical aspects of the brain without large research 04:56:11 It's hard to argue about the physical aspects of the brain with large research. 04:56:36 it's hard to argue about the physical aspects of the brain 04:57:40 it's hard to research the brain when we can only make coarse and minimally invasive observations. It'd be like trying to understand how a computer works by dissecting casio watches and looking over someone's shoulders as they typed letters in a word processor. 04:58:15 nice analogy 04:58:28 I think it works well on several levels 05:35:56 actually i think it would be exactly like understanding how a modern CPU works, with any tools available. 05:36:08 (given that you don't have any knowledge of CPU design) 05:36:39 it's hard to reverse-engineer something so complex. 06:23:48 o 06:28:32 i've heard the human brain is more complex than a computer 06:29:20 to be honest, i don't really believe that 06:29:38 i gotta leave, just 1 hour late! -> 06:31:30 ... 06:31:34 i fail at this. 06:31:40 missed the bus. 06:37:41 Bravo. 06:38:36 omg 06:38:42 1½ minutes till next one :O 06:38:45 fuck! -> 06:42:25 good and bad news: 1. i *would've* been on time for the bus 2. i realized i owe a teacher 25 euros and had to come back 06:44:26 if i miss the next one, this is code day. 06:44:34 getting a bit ridiculous 06:47:37 ->>>>>>>>>>< 06:47:39 -> 06:52:34 * pikhq shall now sleep 06:52:36 -!- bartw has quit. 07:47:04 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:48:30 -!- oklopol has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 07:48:38 -!- oklopol has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 11:38:59 when drawing a wire that snaps into a grid, and only straight lines between adjacent points are possible (just directions NWSE), if the mouse moves say 5 points x-wise (say east), and 2 y-wise (say north), what should the resulting line be like? i first had EEEEENN, now i have EEENENE; or would it perhaps be better if it was as straight as possible? 11:39:13 this of course is a marginal case, since usually you wanna draw the wires sowlky. 11:39:15 *slowly 11:39:20 a bit of a typo there... 11:40:00 (EEENENE is the easiest to make ;)) 11:42:47 hmm... most of you may be sleeping. 11:59:01 -!- sebbu has joined. 12:52:16 -!- ehird` has joined. 13:26:23 -!- Fa1r has quit (zelazny.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 13:27:10 -!- Fa1r has joined. 13:29:19 -!- Fa1r_ has joined. 14:00:18 -!- RedDak has joined. 14:00:22 -!- Fa1r has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 14:33:57 -!- bsmntbom1dood has joined. 14:46:16 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 14:54:47 25 euros is a lot of money to owe a teacher 15:02:20 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection). 16:18:40 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 16:30:00 -!- bsmntbom1dood has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 16:49:25 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 16:49:56 -!- tokigun_ has changed nick to lifthrasiir. 16:53:37 -!- Sgeo has joined. 16:54:11 i also owed a friend 30 euros, and had to pay 20 for an amplifier 16:54:24 this has been an expensive day. 16:56:40 occasionally i have some friends says let us have some lunch or dinner. such a day is quite expensive... 16:58:24 that's one cool nick :O 16:59:48 yup i have changed my nick months ago 8) 17:08:19 -!- sebbu has quit (Connection timed out). 17:31:55 -!- jix has joined. 18:37:06 -!- oerjan has joined. 18:37:18 wtf???????? 18:37:25 ftw 18:37:27 lolcode just got onto boing boing 18:37:34 what 18:38:16 lolcode isn't functional... 18:38:21 oh, wait, it means 'working' in this context 18:38:24 i forgot boingboing was for retards 18:38:41 and it's obviously turing complete 18:51:31 lifthrasiir: what did you use to be? 18:54:29 bsmntbombdood: that norwegian article was about the Dutch/British closing of some OiNK network, and interviewed some norwegian lawyer for record and movie companies claiming there will soon be a similar crackdown in norway. He refused to say which network, although the article speculates that OiNK information will be provided by the british police to the norwegian one. 18:55:35 sounds me like the usual blather of journalists trying to bring a local perspective on an international case. 18:56:08 *to me 19:03:31 -!- Fa1r_ has changed nick to Fa1r. 19:35:41 oerjan: did they say anything about oink's database encryption or somesuch? 19:44:36 "according to a source tipping It-Avisen the OiNK member lists were encrypted to start with, and additionally equipped with a self-destruct mechanism triggering deletion unless they received a certain signal within a given time" 19:47:12 omg just like in the movies 19:53:13 haha 19:53:20 this member list will self distruct in 10 minutes 19:54:08 i'd love to have something like that, the problem is i'd lose my files quite quickly... 19:54:32 * oerjan wonders if the OiNK people were up-to-date with the Evil Overlord list 19:55:59 thanks oerjan 19:57:24 "I will not include a self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, it will not be a large red button labelled "Danger: Do Not Push". The big red button marked "Do Not Push" will instead trigger a spray of bullets on anyone stupid enough to disregard it. Similarly, the ON/OFF switch will not clearly be labelled as such." 19:59:17 "When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."" 19:59:24 that pisses me off in movies and such 19:59:56 Needless dramatic pause leads to captured prisoner getting away? :) 20:00:16 Two people point a gun at each other, looking dr--BANG. Oh, well that was resolved easily. 20:00:21 yep, and it has the desirable side effect of explaining the plot 20:00:23 they should at least shoot the legs before explaining 20:03:21 GregorR: i agree! 20:03:57 "Now you shall be subjected to the worst death ever! It will involve: 1. a long explanation that I will tell you while you manage to escape 2. a long, drawn out, pointless death that would be trivial to escape from anyway" 20:05:12 "Mr Bond. Now that the sedative is wearing off, the feeling should start coming back in the whole of your body except your left leg." // "Why not my leg leg?" 20:05:18 "I removed it" 20:06:04 ?!?! 20:06:09 SimonRC: lmao 20:06:18 i don't remember that james bond movie... 20:06:22 Just an idea that future villains will fail to follow 20:06:36 not out of an actual movie, like duh 20:07:41 oh :P 20:07:49 that is perfect though 20:08:54 -!- jix has quit (Nick collision from services.). 20:09:04 -!- jix has joined. 20:12:57 "If I'm eating dinner with the hero, put poison in his goblet, then have to leave the table for any reason, I will order new drinks for both of us instead of trying to decide whether or not to switch with him." 20:13:01 that one is bad 20:13:11 why are you having dinner with the hero instead of killing him? 20:26:42 i still don't use whitespace, but i gotta admit i find my old codes even too obscure to understand myself 20:26:48 void line(V a,V b,long c){if(a.x>XSZ&&b.x>XSZ)return;if(a.y>YSZ&&b.y>YSZ)return;if(a.x<0&&b.x<0)return;if(a.y<0&&b.y<0)return;if(abs(b.x-a.x)>abs(b.y-a.y)){if(a.x>b.x){double tmp=a.x;a.x=b.x;b.x=tmp;tmp=a.y;a.y=b.y;b.y=tmp;}double rat=(b.y-a.y)/(b.x-a.x);while(a.x<=b.x){pset((int)a.x,(int)a.y,c);a.y+=rat;a.x+=1;}}else{if(a.y>b.y){double tmp=a.x;a.x=b.x;b.x=tmp;tmp=a.y;a.y=b.y;b.y=tmp;}double rat=(b.x-a.x)/(b.y-a.y);while(a.y<=b.y){pset((int)a.x,(int)a.y,c) 20:27:31 the algorithm is trivial, and not a good one; and there was no linefeed :D 20:27:37 i don't think i even had it when i debugged 20:27:57 what the heck does that do 20:28:02 draws a line 20:28:10 ............ on what 20:28:19 using the pset function 20:28:24 what is pset 20:28:26 whatever that draws onto 20:28:34 that code doesn't specify it. 20:28:36 what is pset 20:28:44 you wanna see that? 20:28:46 why? 20:28:50 pset is the QBASIC name for the pixel-set function 20:28:57 but that's C 20:29:01 and other BASICs, I presume 20:29:04 wait 20:29:10 my father came 20:29:13 well one might ahve been named after the other 20:29:23 oklopol: that's... interesting 20:29:33 oklopol: well, obviously, otherwise ou wouldn't exist 20:29:44 yeah yeah, anyway, he left now 20:30:09 so... why do you wanna see pset? that just calls pset for the dots that would exist on a line between a and b, where a and b are vectors 20:30:22 using the "color" c as the third param 20:30:32 pset can be anything. 20:30:47 wait, why would your father being around change anything? 20:31:00 he doesn't want him to see his porn-irc client 20:31:04 i can't irc when my father starts asking me what i'm doing... 20:31:12 mine does that too 20:31:16 i know, i'm pathetic... 20:31:25 SimonRC: i think every father does 20:31:25 :p 20:31:31 doing one thing at a time is for insects 20:31:44 no, it is fore normal people 20:32:06 real geeks can concentrate on a task so much they forget to breath 20:32:09 e 20:32:14 "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" 20:32:14 "Writing code to interface with the BIOS for my hobby OS and improving my irc client." 20:32:14 "..." 20:32:14 "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" 20:32:32 (note: i have not actually tested the above) 20:32:46 i guess. i can actually irc and talk at the same time, in normal situations, but that was too complex a thought to express while talking irl at the same time 20:32:56 even though it was not that complex 20:33:09 i guess was for the normal people thing 20:33:14 Did I tell you I was doing some Forth experimenting? 20:33:23 whoisn't? 20:33:26 *+" " 20:33:31 :) 20:33:33 SimonRC: ??? 20:33:35 SimonRC: me too!! 20:33:41 did you write a forth in brainfuck? :) 20:33:46 no 20:33:53 ehird`: my father knows more about bios than me 20:33:53 I started before that 20:34:03 SimonRC: damnit 20:34:07 SimonRC: ok, what di dyou do then :P 20:34:20 when it comes to computers, i just own him at coding (which was his job for 20 years...) 20:35:17 I just threw together a small VM 20:35:37 it has a stack, a control stack, and main memory 20:35:37 ahh 20:35:44 hey, that's not forth-y :( 20:35:49 huh? 20:35:51 real forths access the system directly :| 20:35:51 yes it is 20:35:55 ah 20:36:07 none of this vm crap! ;p 20:36:11 well I didn't have a compiler that could do that 20:36:17 it is a very minimalist VM 20:36:22 gnu as can do that ;) 20:36:47 I am still assembling things by hand though 20:36:56 http://www.annexia.org/_file/jonesforth.s.txt very short gnu as forth system, comes with a tutorial which explains how it's done in great detail 20:36:58 it's very good 20:37:06 also, SimonRC, the stack is meant to go in main memory. :-) 20:37:41 well I didn't have net access at the time 20:37:54 still, jonesforth is worth a read 20:37:55 And I am still editing it in numbers, which is leet 20:37:57 it's really eye-opening 20:38:14 "1, 48, 60, 102, 22" <-- that is printdigit 20:38:36 pff, read jonesforth 20:38:45 it uses handy gnu as tricks like, oh, being able to do: 20:38:51 name: 20:38:51 .int x 20:38:51 .int y 20:38:51 ... 20:38:55 and refer to it as name 20:39:09 still as low level, not as hyper-1337-oh-wait-what-does-that-number-mean-again ;) 20:40:14 the only conditional I have is ?: 20:40:25 pff, jonesforth only has "branch" 20:40:33 read it! it doesn't take too long ;) 20:40:41 (it continues at http://www.annexia.org/_file/jonesforth.f.txt when it gets into forth) 20:40:43 shouldn't that be 1337? 20:41:21 (er, SimonRC not ehird`) 20:42:39 : FORTH COMPILER-SEMANTICS UNINTUITIVE GOOD ; 20:43:31 if you have less than a hundred commands, numbers are just as easy to use as words 20:43:47 oklopol: that is not the point 20:43:49 mnenomics are easier 20:44:17 bsmntbombdood: oklopol doesn't get "easy", he thinks that if /he/ knows how his code works (... right now... while he's writing it... for the first time...) then why should he do anything else 20:44:29 obviously incorrect, unless you want one session in your editor and then have to abandon it 20:45:30 i've never had any trouble reading my code after a long time, except for the sickest ones i've done; i'm just saying numbers are as eays to understand as words, if you just have a few of them to memorize. 20:45:54 I comment religiously 20:46:13 i don't comment religiously because i make my code self-documenting 20:46:17 this means not using numbers for words ;) 20:46:23 every time I want to add a word, I write it in BoredForth in a comment, then write the number underneath 20:46:34 I haven't got it bootstrapping yet :-( 20:46:40 seriously, you should read jonesforth 20:46:43 getting out of bootstrapping is simple 20:46:56 go, read it now, then go back to boredforth with your new knowledge :-) 20:48:22 I am reading 20:51:32 -!- jix has quit ("CommandQ"). 20:54:15 i have a new life goal! 20:54:20 create a programming language where this is cat: http://rafb.net/p/GhR1Hn14.html 20:55:25 NNNGHHH! (that was a comment) 20:56:01 :D 20:56:04 it would be awesome 20:56:16 having / and slash both as commands is beautiful 20:57:48 -!- jix has joined. 20:57:54 i like the line noise ones that have a theme going on... it gets a bit boring when it's fully random 20:58:05 question marks remind me of that... whatsit... 20:58:16 the language with splot and mulbruf 20:58:25 but the names were something completely different 20:58:39 ok, how about the ? / language 20:58:46 i don't know what it is, but it's crazy 20:59:22 yeah, that one 20:59:29 ah the one in the paste? 20:59:42 i think the one i mean is cakeprophet's, but not sure 21:00:05 also, where is that guy... i hate it when regulars dissappear 21:00:20 it's like losing a friend :'( 21:00:31 FNRK BRTRTRTR SKRNK SVRPTK 21:00:43 oerjan: isisaoa9838383 21:01:34 ASDSFEFEBR ERBTIA 21:01:39 floodfest 21:01:45 *garblefest 21:03:29 * SimonRC goes 21:04:40 how about this: 21:04:57 / changes all /s into ?s 21:04:57 ? does something 21:04:57 :P 21:06:30 ? is call/cc! 21:06:44 i'm pretty sure those semantics aren't tc :p 21:07:00 well call/cc wouldn't make any sense, but anyway xD 21:07:18 since... wtf is calling in a substitution language :) 21:08:18 ooh, how about something that operates on the program code as a data structure 21:08:21 and the commands modify it 21:14:09 =D 21:14:21 LISP! 21:14:28 that is not what lisp does 21:18:20 -!- RedDak has joined. 21:19:41 true, but it should 21:19:51 that'd be odd 21:19:55 since lisp is lists not strings 21:19:56 everything should be self-modifying 21:21:36 "data structure" need not mean "string"... 21:23:45 Lists are a data structure. 21:23:55 And everything in Lisp is a list. 21:23:59 ;) 21:24:01 yes 21:24:03 well 21:24:05 apart from atoms 21:24:09 and a bunch of other stuff :-) 21:24:37 pikhq: but lisp cannot modify itself 21:24:38 directly 21:24:47 well, it kind of can 21:25:16 Isn't that what Lisp macros *are*? 21:25:18 yes, but you cannot make a loop that keeps itself going by adding nested lists to itself for more to evaluate 21:25:25 hmm, perhaps. 21:25:34 oklopol is right, without eval 21:26:25 you could do something with rplacd, surely? 21:26:31 i think macros are a bit limited, not being first-class thingies, but you might be able to do program flow with them... haven't really used them enough to know. 21:26:40 rplacd? 21:26:40 hmm 21:26:48 (but maybe not in the code) 21:26:49 hooray for archaic cl names 21:26:50 um macros are first class 21:27:00 lisp macros are first-class.. 21:27:00 set-cdr!, not rplacd 21:27:10 ehird`: no they're not 21:27:28 yes they are 21:27:33 :| 21:27:39 ehird`: what lisp? 21:27:47 decent lisps 21:27:59 not in cl or scheme 21:28:38 hm, i thought scheme macros were first-class 21:28:52 ok, now someone has to implement first-class-macros using scheme macros :-) 21:29:01 ololobot lisp has first-class macros, but you can't define your own macros, so it's kinda retarded ;) 21:30:13 ololobot has a lisp? 21:30:16 get it in here! 21:30:18 i must test it 21:30:20 and hack on it 21:30:51 it's retarded, i tells ya! 21:30:52 but okay. 21:31:03 the whole thing is just a quick hack. 21:31:40 -!- ololobot has joined. 21:31:59 it just has a few basic things, and i'm not sure that's even a working version of it. 21:32:12 i'm too lazy to use the newest version, since it's on the other comp 21:32:19 >>> sch (+ 1 2) 21:32:21 3 21:32:25 yay. 21:32:42 >>> sch (define a (lambda (b c) (+ b c))) 21:32:43 () 21:32:43 >>> sch ((lambda (x y) x) 1 2) 21:32:44 1 21:32:48 >>> (a 2 4) 21:33:03 lol. 21:33:06 >>> sch (a 2 4) 21:33:08 6 21:33:09 i never learn 21:33:17 >>> sch (lambda (x) x) 21:33:18 21:33:32 >>> sch ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) 21:33:36 :-) 21:33:39 better kill that 21:33:45 ehird` beat me to it. 21:33:51 heh 21:34:03 >>> 2 21:34:07 >>> sch 2 21:34:08 i'm using python's __reload__ for "threading" 21:34:09 2 21:34:14 oklopol: how? 21:34:18 >>> sch `2 21:34:24 so... it basically dies when you reuse the command, i think 21:34:32 I CAN HAS ERROR MESSAGES? 21:34:33 hmm... not sure i have quoting in that version 21:34:34 >>> sch '2 21:34:36 None 21:34:38 >>> sch 'oko 21:34:39 None 21:34:40 wait, no quoting? 21:34:41 ummm 21:34:44 >>> sch (quote oko) 21:34:44 it's useless, then? 21:34:45 oko 21:34:48 ah 21:34:52 do you have quasiquote 21:34:54 aka ` 21:35:03 >>> sch `oko 21:35:06 >>> sch ´oko 21:35:07 None 21:35:14 that is, `(a b ,c d) is (list 'a 'b c 'd) 21:35:19 no, haven't implemented it in that version 21:35:20 quasiquoting is useful you should support it 21:35:28 but i think i even have the comma thingie in the new one 21:35:39 >>> sch (list 1 2 3) 21:35:42 (1 2 3) 21:36:33 >>> sch (eval 2) 21:36:34 2 21:36:49 >>> sch (define \ lambda) 21:36:50 () 21:36:53 does it remember definitions? 21:36:56 >>> sch \ 21:36:57 lambda 21:36:58 it should... 21:36:59 yay 21:37:00 yeah 21:37:03 >>> sch (\ (x) x) 21:37:04 21:37:42 primitives are always autoreloaded, so you can't kill them permanently 21:37:44 >>> sch (define \ (lambda (x y) (eval (list lambda (list x) y)))) 21:37:46 () 21:37:51 >>> sch (\ x x) 21:37:53 21:37:55 >>> sch ((\ x x) 2) 21:37:56 hmm 21:37:56 None 21:38:00 wait, what 21:38:26 umm umm 21:38:51 it seems it failed :< 21:39:01 but i don't know where 21:39:27 >>> sch (eval (list lambda (list x) 4)) 21:39:28 21:39:28 oh 21:39:39 >>> sch ((eval (list lambda (list x) 4)) 5) 21:39:40 4 21:39:52 x is evaluated. 21:40:03 -> it fales 21:43:44 back 21:43:48 ahh i see 21:43:57 well 21:44:00 it's hard, because 21:44:05 i WANT to evaluate x 21:44:10