00:09:16 -!- Sgeo has joined. 00:44:02 hey ehird which monitor is less bad: 00:44:05 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317 00:44:09 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824113019 00:44:46 How good are your eyes? 00:44:54 ? 00:45:00 Simple question. 00:45:17 Oh, it's not quite that bad. 00:45:41 bsmntbombdood: If you're a huge pixel junkie, go for the former. It has more pixels, you see. The latter is bigger and 16:10. 00:45:50 16:10 beats 16:9 at that kind of size. 00:46:02 The bezel on that Gateway sure does look ugly, though. 00:46:19 like that matters 00:46:27 bsmntbombdood: The Samsung's dpi is 102.16, so some text could be quite smalll without fucking with system settings. 00:46:42 Also, it really is horrifically ugly. 00:46:54 *small 00:47:12 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ShowImage.aspx?CurImage=24-113-019-S02&ISList=24-113-019-S01%2c24-113-019-S02%2c24-113-019-S03%2c24-113-019-S04%2c24-113-019-S05%2c24-113-019-S06%2c24-113-019-S07%2c24-113-019-S08&S7ImageFlag=1&Item=N82E16824113019&Depa=0&WaterMark=1&Description=Gateway%20FHD2401%20Black%2024%22%205ms%20HDMI%20Widescreen%20LCD%20Monitor oh god, my eyes 00:47:15 Go with the Samsung! :-P 00:47:32 But, ehh, apart from the obvious aspect ratio and resolutions, they're equally shitty. 00:47:56 bah 00:48:09 Bah! Codswallop! 00:49:53 you think everything suck 00:49:53 s 00:50:22 Untrue! But there's a reason those displays cost 200 bucks. 00:52:02 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824179058 00:52:06 cheaper 00:52:47 http://tinyurl.com/55abze 00:52:48 Cheaper 00:52:59 retard 00:53:19 I wonder why you ask me for opinions when you just call me a retard and say I think everything sucks. 00:53:46 ok, what is a good monitor then? 00:53:58 Too expensive, that's what :( 00:54:13 exactly 00:54:28 bsmntbombdood: But, uhh, the higher the response time, the less likely that company just panders to idiots who go for "ooh, faster". 00:54:37 Admittedly, it also finds sucky displays that are just made badly and suck. 00:54:53 Look at the 1920x1200 ones, I'd say 00:55:05 that's what i have been doing 00:55:40 Heh, the top-rated 1920x1200 is a pricey IPS 00:55:55 That 25.5 ASUS is lame, really crappy pixel density 00:56:21 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824196020 Get this... and you'll be... in the hood 00:56:25 oh, I crack myself up 00:57:03 bsmntbombdood: But seriously, most cheap displays are exactly the same, so just get the cheapest one with a reasonable size/resolution (24" 1920x1200 is a good bet) and a high rating 00:57:10 you think 25.5 is too big for 1920*1200? 00:57:19 Yes 00:57:23 24" is already 94 ppi 00:57:31 (96 being the "canonical" ppi) 00:57:53 bsmntbombdood: As an alternative, if you really don't care, get the most pixels you can and fuck the rest. 00:57:55 You probably won't notice. 00:58:30 So, that Samsung you linked is probably your best bet if you don't mind squinting for some text. 00:58:41 Although it's just 102 PPI, which isn't really all that bad. 00:59:14 If you have good eyesight, it'll be fine, and you get 2359296 pixels. 00:59:15 * Sgeo should learn how to use screen 00:59:26 screen is lame. 01:00:00 So is typing python Sucket.py >~/sucket.out 2>~/sucket.err & 01:00:26 so first you say go 1920*1200, then recommend 2048*1152? 01:00:33 Sgeo: That's totally unrelated to screen 01:00:42 bsmntbombdood: As in, "if you really don't care about the quality" 01:00:47 ehird, screen would let me run Sucket in its own um, thingy 01:00:50 And just leave it there 01:00:56 Without redirecting stuff 01:01:01 Which, if you're looking at $2xx displays, you don't, so just go all out and get the most pixels you can 01:01:10 Sgeo: That's called opening a new terminal or tab 01:01:18 Screen is just a lousy terminal tabbing system 01:01:25 A pain to use and over-complicated 01:01:29 ehird, I'm intending to leave this open even after I turn off my computer 01:01:30 Plus it lets you suspend a session, that's cool I gueuss 01:01:35 But that's the only thing 01:01:37 Sgeo: Err, how? 01:01:44 Your computer can't run things while it's off. 01:01:45 ehird, it's running on normish 01:02:03 /shrug 01:03:29 :/ 01:04:21 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824179058 01:04:27 that's cheap and seems to have good reviews 01:04:48 It has no reviews. 01:04:52 Not on newegg, at least. 01:04:58 Not a single rating. 01:05:08 on other sites 01:05:14 * Sgeo now understands screen well enough to use it 01:05:20 Eh, just get it. You won't be disappointed. 01:05:50 Unless you have another display with different colour characteristics and look at any sort of coloured image... But seriously, people don't care. 01:11:56 i don't even know if the monitor i have now is crappy or not 01:12:18 bsmntbombdood: how much did it cost? 01:12:24 no idea 01:12:32 how big is it, who made it, what resolution 01:13:09 i think it's 19", 1280*1024, made by princeton 01:13:44 I have never heard of Princeton. Googling just gives some amazon and review sites and forums and stuff. 01:14:00 Almost certainly some cost-cutting budget manufacturer with no presence. 01:14:20 Yeah, I can't even find a company site or anything. 01:14:30 Almost certainly really crap. 01:15:20 http://www99.shopping.com/xPF-LCD1910 01:15:24 that's the one 01:16:21 9—16.9 ms (!!) response time, company has no presence, tiny, uses a whopping 55 W... 01:16:28 Crapp. 01:16:29 *Crap. 01:16:42 (The response time would be fine if it was IPS, but it clearly isn't. So it's just shoddy engineering.) 01:17:26 ok fuck it 01:17:32 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824179058 01:17:35 i'm buying that one 01:17:50 can't handle the extra pixels eh?!?!?!? :P 01:42:16 yay 01:42:20 new monitor in 3 days 01:42:35 damn, it's wednesday 01:42:42 that means 6 days 01:44:48 Oh noes 01:58:38 There's ways to boost response time of LCD display, but those tend to result their own issues... 01:58:54 See all the 2 ms displays, catering to idiotic gamers. 01:59:00 Such a load of crap. 02:00:46 Then one gets effects like reverse ghosting... 02:02:08 Yum yum yum. 02:21:08 BTW: Anybody written brainhype program that prints 'Y' if Goldbach conjecture is true, 'N' otherwise? :-> 02:23:55 That'd be trivial, no? 02:24:24 [[This language is "super-Turing-complete" because it solves the halting problem for Turing machines.]] 02:24:26 This is false. 02:24:34 Brainhype solves the halting problem for Brainhype. 02:24:39 So it solves the halting problem for a super-Turing machine... 02:24:43 Which is even harder! 02:33:45 IIRC, making string extender where the program would be unrestricted grammar would give something super-turing (AFAIK, complement of context-free grammar already gives turing-complete result)... 02:37:02 The computational class for that is upper-bounded by RE^RE. 02:47:03 ehird: I don't think writing the program in brainhype would be trivial. You need stuff like primality testing... 03:06:50 True. 03:08:35 both of your nicks are the same length and the same color 03:08:43 this conversation is impossible to follow 03:08:53 Your mom is the same length and colour. 03:09:04 so's your face 03:09:13 Touché 03:10:46 -!- Oranjer has joined. 03:10:59 hello! 03:11:11 What is going on here? 03:11:17 -!- _0x44 has joined. 03:11:37 -!- _0x44 has left (?). 03:12:14 awwww _0x44!! 03:12:20 anyone here? 03:12:49 anyone sentient and autonomous enough to comprehend the meanings behind these words? 03:13:21 * bsmntbombdood sits and watches 03:13:37 fungot is 03:13:38 Asztal: why aren't they in the mood for a lisp not to be particularly condusive to stacks. 03:13:56 uh 03:14:21 fungot, what you just said does not nearly begin to prove your sentience 03:14:22 Oranjer: i figure that this *is* an unstable version of chicken? 03:14:33 ummm 03:14:33 Oranjer: meet Markov 03:14:38 hello, Markov 03:14:46 as in, a Markov chain? 03:14:46 Asztal: fungot is Markov, right? 03:14:47 coppro: control is at one level of indentation. it just happens to be extraordinary like few things are vague, but it's 03:14:53 :O 03:14:58 is fungot a bot? 03:14:59 Oranjer: it is a good way too much 03:15:04 yeah, it is 03:15:14 you're quick 03:15:16 isn't he, fungot? 03:15:17 coppro: the local of the same original code. ( " the wrong way 03:15:57 fungot doesn't seem very coherent 03:15:59 Oranjer: but was walk-lisp properly tail-recursive? ( else i will tell em... :-p something... 03:16:23 fungot, parantheses require a closing ) to be grammatically correct where I come from 03:16:24 Oranjer: which is quite irrelevant if the rest are possible optimizations to be done 03:16:31 my gods, he's right 03:18:11 fungot, listen to me 03:18:12 Oranjer: that was mean, stop doing homework problems.' 03:18:24 dammit, fungot can also predict the future 03:18:25 Oranjer: unicode defines " case folding" which is fine but how could i have to be a 03:18:32 a what, fungot? 03:18:40 :O 03:18:44 fungot 03:18:51 FUNGOT 03:18:58 now I just feel ridiculous 03:19:03 Oranjer: It ignores you after a time so that WE DON'T GET PEOPLE SPAMMING THE CRAP OUT OF THE BOTS! 03:19:05 Ahem. Hi. 03:19:15 I'm your friendly channel asshole. 03:19:15 sorry, ehird 03:19:20 Wait, scratch the friendly. 03:19:39 I am a lonely man in a lonely world in a lonely channel in a lonely state of mind 03:19:43 Oranjer: fungot is written in befunge 03:19:43 ehird: well i read examples in r5rs... inside a syntax form, so wherever you have a point there 03:19:43 http://zem.fi/~fis/fungot.b98.txt 03:19:44 ehird: c also provides a modest degree of portability, its return should be opaque objects, rather than having a fnord assembler compiler... 03:19:47 Although that might be an old version 03:19:54 I'm going to assume you're here for the languagees 03:19:58 *languages; I hate this keyboard 03:20:16 yep? ha! 03:20:26 what languages do you mean, though? 03:20:34 Esoteric programming languages. Like Befunge. 03:20:39 ooh! haha 03:20:41 nope! 03:20:47 We get a steady occasional trickle of esoterica people... 03:20:54 ...aand like clockwork, you're another one. 03:21:01 ummm 03:21:14 Well, unless you're here for a mysterious third purpose. 03:21:24 A guy a while back came in here to talk about Russian music. 03:21:54 Oranjer: You seem quite confused. 03:21:55 actually, coppro recommended this channel because I wanted to talk about my attempts at creating a universal language akin to that conceptualized by Leibniz 03:22:11 Well, with that one sentence I think you've proved you belong here. Hiiiiii. 03:22:23 HEYlo 03:22:33 :D /me has finally done something good in this channel 03:22:46 We're crazy, we're http://esolangs.org/, we're oklo. 03:22:51 :O 03:22:52 (We fight crime?) 03:23:03 funny, I was thinking the same thing 03:23:05 everyone either fights it or does it 03:23:13 Is oklopol like INTERPOL but with less INTER and more oklo? 03:23:23 oklopol is oklopol 03:23:25 also glio 03:23:29 but that's just heresy 03:23:31 how can one use oklo- as an affix? 03:23:37 Okloy. 03:23:42 *okloy 03:23:46 also, I have actually heard of esoteric languages before 03:23:47 (The capitalisation is part of the spelling!) 03:23:51 brainfuck and all that 03:24:02 Yes, that's the canonical one. 03:24:16 okay 03:24:17 Brainfuck pales in comparison to some of the things developed in here 03:24:22 and a few that weren't 03:24:30 I have heard that said before, coppro 03:25:00 PLEASE .1 <- #4235~#&2098 DON'T wait, what? 03:25:07 I'm pretty sure Feather will be classed as a Schedule I drug upon its release and wide dissemination 03:25:15 is it addictive? 03:25:27 is it mind altering? 03:25:33 ais523 can't seem to stop trying to import it from Hilbert-space to this world. 03:25:37 Very yes. 03:26:01 Hilbert-space? is that a meta, a mesa, an alter, or an inter space? 03:26:30 I saw someone use Hilbert-space to denote the platonic realm of information and ideas, and it's rather more concise, plus the name is cute. 03:26:32 So I adopted it. 03:26:36 oh, okay 03:26:48 It doesn't make sense, but it sounds nice. 03:26:54 I just use ideosphere or memosphere or psychosphere myself 03:27:24 I think the fact that you use a term for it at all further cements your belonging in here... 03:27:31 yay 03:27:51 Come to think of it, once Feather is fully formed, it'll probably have always existed. 03:28:09 damn self-supporting existences 03:28:09 In fact, a retroactive paradox in Feather caused the Big Bang... 03:28:31 hm 03:28:31 what's Feather? 03:28:36 hello, Pthing 03:28:36 Oranjer: NO NO NO 03:28:39 YOU DID NOT WANT TO ASK THAT QUESTION 03:28:41 i am suddenly curious about what Plato called Platonica 03:28:43 ahhhhhhhhh 03:28:43 and it turns out 03:28:45 But the true earth is pure (katharan) and situated in the pure heaven (en katharōi ouranōi) ... and it is the heaven which is commonly spoken by us as the ether (aithera) ... for if any man could arrive at the extreme limit ... he would acknowledge that this other world was the place of the true heaven (ho alethōs ouranos) and the true light (to alethinon phōs) and the true earth (hē hōs alēthōs gē). 03:28:45 sorry 03:28:49 RUN AWAY! 03:28:49 SHIT 03:28:50 SHIT 03:28:52 SHIT 03:28:59 While you still have the last vestiges of the remnants of your sanity 03:29:00 * Sgeo works around unicode strangeness by going directly into the database and removing a problematic line 03:29:01 *sanity! 03:29:15 sanity? I know not what you speaketh ofeth 03:29:17 May the gods of forgive me 03:29:51 so it would appear we have a choice of "pure heaven" or "the aether" 03:30:07 I did not know he placed the Forms in the aether 03:30:14 i guess it makes sense 03:30:14 Oranjer: To grossly misrepresent it to a degree that borders on being a lie, and insult ais523 by painting it as more simple than it is, 03:30:57 what? 03:31:00 Oranjer: It basically involves programs modifying the Feather interpreter (itself written in Feather). This interpreter is then used to retroactively run all of the program from the start, so that the change "always was", in a sense. Except it also changes the interpreter used to interpret the interpreter that interpreted the program, and so on to infinite depth. 03:31:21 Oranjer: You change the interpreter, which causes an infinite chain of retroactive reinterpretations of the interpreter, and then finally of the program. 03:31:50 but it cannot actually go through time, correct? 03:32:23 Oranjer: Surprisingly no! 03:32:26 I know, it's shocking. 03:32:45 bah, doubtful--even Hofstadter could not escape time 03:33:01 It basically forgets all it did and removes any output it made. The hard part is escaping the necessity of interpreting the interpreter infinite times... 03:33:27 amnesia is not time travel 03:33:37 also, Halting Problem! 03:33:50 (a) That's not what I said. 03:34:01 (b) Do attempt to explain how the halting problem is related. 03:34:10 haha 03:34:12 okay 03:34:32 ais523 has a faint grasp on how to actually specify the language and is looking into working into an interpreter (well, was; he's stopped for now, I think), so... 03:35:14 I'm pretty confident it's implementable on a Turing machine. 03:35:26 okay 03:35:30 a UTM or a regular one? 03:35:31 what isn;t? 03:35:35 *' 03:35:38 coppro: UTM, obviously. 03:35:50 Oranjer: Super-turing languages, such as those that can solve the halting problem. 03:36:10 :O 03:36:12 (These are probably impossible to implement in physics...) 03:36:19 I doubt their existence 03:36:30 Well, obviously the halting problem is not solvable at all, as it's a non-concept. 03:36:37 heh 03:36:39 Oranjer: Super-turing languages definitely exist. 03:36:54 They are probably not possible to implement in our universe, though. 03:36:57 I still doubt their existence, regardless of your anecdotal support 03:37:05 So, for all intents and purposes, they are impossible to implement. 03:37:07 can they be modeled in this universe? 03:37:11 Oranjer: They certainly exist, they're just not implementable. 03:37:18 No. 03:37:18 They have been specified, a few on our wiki. 03:37:26 coppro: Almost certainly no, you mean. 03:37:31 can they be modeled in this universe? 03:37:32 ehird: yes 03:37:35 Who knows what the crazy quantum physicists will discover next. 03:37:41 Oranjer: as ehird says, almost certainly no 03:37:42 Oranjer: No. 03:37:48 But they can be specified in the abstract. 03:37:49 okay 03:37:54 ehird: I repeat your previous correction 03:37:59 ...that's what I meant, ehird... 03:38:13 Oranjer: So how can you doubt their existence? 03:38:36 I cannot, if they can be modeled, then they exist 03:38:44 Rightyhothen 03:39:28 I'm a modal realist, by the way 03:39:38 it has no bearing, just thought i should let y'all know 03:40:15 anyways 03:40:21 what did this all start with again? 03:40:54 Being in this channel for long enough makes you give up on answering that question. 03:41:19 okay 03:41:40 Besardles, I intend to create a functionally universal language 03:41:45 Can y'all help? 03:41:49 Modal realism strikes me as similar to solipsism: unfalsifiable, and hard to accept in practice 03:42:03 ouch 03:42:09 that hurt's more than you think 03:42:14 Oranjer: no one helps in here. 03:42:17 :( 03:42:22 Oranjer: Your abuse of the apostrophe hurts even more! 03:42:26 :( 03:42:40 All that happens is that ehird berates your attempts and other people make unhelpful suggestions 03:42:41 that's preposterous's 03:42:42 Do note that I arrived at that opinion with a three-second skim of the Wikipedia article. 03:42:51 coppro: You're welcome! 03:42:54 'tis okay 03:43:05 and yet, somehow, you end up thinking this is a nice place to hang out 03:43:19 okay 03:43:21 At least we're all articulate. 03:43:26 That's very true. 03:43:29 E-prime! 03:43:35 Optimus Prime! 03:43:58 no! E-Prime! 03:44:18 Optimus E-Prime! 03:44:24 haha 03:44:41 dammit, now I have to find an Optimus quote and write it in E-Prime 03:44:58 That's what I was thinking. 03:45:04 *synergy* 03:45:23 Synergetics, as per Buckminster Fuller? 03:47:14 ehird? have I destroyed you? 03:47:23 Yes! 03:47:32 Buckminster is awesome. 03:47:35 Well, was, I guess. 03:47:44 yeah 03:47:52 buckminster was awful 03:47:55 I am saddened that I could never meet him or Borges 03:48:08 -!- Asztal has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 03:48:13 did you ever actually try to read anything he wrote 03:48:14 how does that bot know about buckminster? 03:48:21 Pthing is a bot now? 03:48:22 :-D 03:48:34 Pthing: Why do you say that? 03:48:47 I..thought...but all that jumbled nonsense after I asked "What's Feather?" 03:48:49 because he just rambles on and on making deep sounding gibberish 03:48:58 that doesn't mean anything 03:49:03 yeah, but what he says is useful 03:49:06 what 03:49:25 also, I guess you're right--the best book on Synergetics was actually a book-wide review on Fuller's book 03:49:28 His inventions and concepts are inspired enough that I am inclined to give credence to his written work, even though I have not read it. 03:49:33 you shouldn't 03:49:44 why not? 03:49:59 'tis my favorite quote from a movie I never saw 03:50:07 "The Idea is valid regardless of the Origin" 03:50:13 what ideas 03:50:22 (I am also an Epistemological Anarchist) 03:50:39 Dymaxion sleep schedule. Geodesic domes. Dymaxion house (eccentric, yes, but interesting). 03:50:49 *houses, I guess. 03:50:54 Synergetics 03:51:04 what do you see in synergetics exactly 03:51:17 building a mile-diameter floating geodesic dome by heating the inside up by one degree 03:52:09 we are fortunate somebody put the whole thing up 03:52:09 http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html 03:52:14 ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"? 03:52:18 It seems obvious to me that Buckminster was crazy, or at least highly eccentric, but the Dymaxion sleep schedule, Geodesic domes, Dymaxion houses and other such cool stuff makes me highly suspicious of any accusations that he's just a kook. 03:52:38 I have some awesomes quotes from the man 03:53:01 ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"? 03:53:03 Epistemological anarchism seems stupid. 03:53:07 :O 03:53:16 ehird, no! at least back up your insults! 03:53:25 you mean, in fact, "the use of triangles to build things" 03:53:39 no...? 03:53:42 As far as I can tell, it's "the scientific method is fascist, hurf durf, let's just make up shit". 03:53:52 now now, ehird, that's not it at all 03:54:03 At least, the Wikipedia page says nothing about it making coherent arguments against the scientific method as a universal decider. 03:55:02 I merely suggest that there is no concrete boundary between "science" and "pseudoscience", and that therefore a theory's "rightness" can only be determined by its validity to reality, and that that can only be determined by its usefulness 03:55:46 Well, Wikipedia claims that the source of epistemological anarchism was against only considering falsifiable claims, so I guess that explains modal realism. 03:55:53 1005.54 Truth is cosmically total: synergetic. Verities are generalized principles stated in semimetaphorical terms. Verities are differentiable. But love is omniembracing, omnicoherent, and omni-inclusive, with no exceptions. Love, like synergetics, is nondifferentiable, i.e., is integral. Differential means locally-discontinuously linear. Integration means omnispherical. And the intereffects are precessional. 03:56:37 Pthing: reading that line is like trying to read in a dream 03:56:40 1005.612 When a person dies, all the chemistry remains, and we see that the human organism's same aggregate quantity of the same chemistries persists from the "live" to the "dead" state. This aggregate of chemistries has no metaphysical interpreter to communicate to self or to others the aggregate of chemical rates of interacting associative or disassociative proclivities, the integrated effects of which humans speak o 03:56:40 I keep forgetting three words ago 03:56:40 f as "hunger" or as the need to "go to the toilet." Though the associative intake "hunger" is unspoken metaphysically after death, the disassociative discard proclivities speak for themselves as these chemical-proclivity discard behaviors continue and reach self-balancing rates of progressive disassociation. What happens physically at death is that the importing ceases while exporting persists, which produces a locally 03:56:43 unbalanced__thereafter exclusively exporting__system. (See Sec. 1052.59.) 03:56:45 this is better 03:57:10 Anyway, by "Buckminster is awesome" I meant "he was crazy in a cool way, and his inventions are awesome". 03:57:17 now, now, Pthing, we can select at random and then textualize any fragment of any work of science, and reach the same "this guy's a kook 'cause he uses jargon I don't know" 03:57:18 Clearly his written work is rather too eccentric. 03:57:24 most of the time he was crazy in a boring way 03:57:34 Perhaps in his writing. 03:57:40 which is what I am talking about 03:57:48 http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/40.html 03:57:52 Well, I never said anything about his writing, really. 03:57:52 Oranjer, now now stop saying "now now" like a patronising faggot 03:57:55 that's a link to that book 03:58:08 When I said "at least we're all articulate", maybe Pthing isn't too articulate. 03:58:17 now now, Pthing, you know namecalling is on the bottom of the disagreement hierarchy 03:58:18 Unless he's actually saying that Oranjer is acting homoesxual. 03:58:22 *homosexual 03:58:22 :O 03:58:27 haha, disagreement hierarchy 03:58:35 have you seen it? 03:58:38 way to rhizome 03:58:38 Oranjer: please, say that wasn't a paul graham reference 03:58:42 uhhhh 03:58:47 oops? is that taboo? sorry 03:58:57 * ehird feacepalm 03:58:59 ... 03:59:01 *facepalm 03:59:14 *fecespalm* just sounds awful 03:59:38 jargon can be used for multiple purposes 03:59:47 ideally it is used as a kind of shorthand for more complex terms 03:59:53 only if you fail to provide a framework of definitions 03:59:55 or, as here, it can be used for poetic mystification 03:59:57 Graham's disagreement hierarchy falls into the the latter of the two categories of Paul Graham's work, being stupid ego-driven rubbish and complete obviousness yet somehow presented in the most egotistical way imaginable. 04:00:13 oh? you can tell the difference between the two, Pthing, without knowing what the words mean? 04:00:22 oh, sorry, ehird 04:00:24 then please explain 04:00:43 oh, no, I can't Pthing, I just like to be confrontational 04:01:21 since we're quoting authorities and accusing each other of being inarticulate, I'll pull out the "if you can't explain what you are doing to an n year old child, then you do not understand it" card 04:01:22 Well that's... surprisingly honest. 04:01:28 Oranjer: by the way, oerjan may sue you for name infringement. 04:01:32 :O 04:01:44 Pthing: I can't explain the halting problem to an n year old child. 04:01:48 I have heard of that individual, as I have also heard of you, ehird 04:01:49 really 04:01:56 Well, specify n. 04:02:05 n is usually ~= 6 04:02:23 also, you caught me, Pthing--I do not understand anything Buckminster says--I've never read a single thing he's ever written 04:02:23 also it's often specified that it is a bright child 04:02:34 oh then 04:02:37 heh 04:03:01 by the unpopular epistemic idea of "people who have read a text are better equipped to discuss it than people who haven't" 04:03:12 hehehahaha 04:03:26 I have no idea what we're doing, anyway 04:03:51 i was rather hoping you could explain what you saw in the above quoted sentences 04:03:54 I would ask how this all started, but I learned my lesson before 04:03:57 because they seem entirely meaningless to me 04:04:09 oh? then I shall look at it again 04:04:09 I'll grab the acid and the popcorn 04:04:10 or rather pregnant with a meaning always out of grasp 04:04:27 which can make for fine fiction, but this does nothing for me 04:04:56 yeah no, I ain't getting anything outa it--I don't know what half the words mean 04:05:17 I wonder if Buckminster built up from earlier definitions of those words? 04:05:19 here is an epistemic Pro Tip 04:05:27 probably not 04:05:33 heh 04:05:44 Someone should write some nonsense on how the scientific method is inherently capitalist, and proposing a collectivist form of epistemological reasoning 04:05:48 Then submit it to a postmodernist journal 04:05:56 and throw in feminism, of course 04:05:59 Tada, Sokal affair mk. II! 04:06:03 um 04:06:17 you kinda prejudice it by saying it's nonsense 04:06:23 I mean, shrill feminism, where history is masculine and whatnot 04:06:35 Pthing: Define it 04:06:43 define what :| 04:06:48 "you kinda prejudice it" 04:06:49 Sokal affair mk. II? 04:06:53 But yes, such a paper has something like a 99.99% chance of being bullshit 04:06:54 the paper you proposed? 04:06:58 um 04:07:04 Oranjer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair 04:07:08 ooh! 04:07:13 Pthing: Thus why I said "some nonsense" 04:07:15 I remember that without even clicking on it 04:07:22 Oranjer: haha 04:07:53 political criticisms of such things are not entirely nonsense 04:08:17 I would argue that nothing is entirely nonsense, if it has functionality 04:08:28 what's functionality 04:08:41 what is it with this discussion? you go around and point out some Buckminster bullshit, and now you're praising an imaginary paper that decries the scientific method as being capitalist 04:08:51 i'm not praising it? 04:08:51 and proposing some vague, meaningless "collectivist epistemology" 04:08:56 you proposed it >:| 04:08:59 haha, ehird, perhaps his consistency is beyond you? 04:09:02 it seems like we're continually swapping places all the time 04:09:04 Pthing: Yes, as a hoax 04:09:05 not only content with pretending to write it 04:09:05 a joke 04:09:08 y'see 04:09:12 you're pretending i'm critiquing the finished product 04:09:20 also, ehird, switching positions is a good thing, I've heard 04:09:26 Pthing: i'm confused 04:09:30 when I'm actually talking about the whole body of ideas that would lead to such a thing being written for real 04:09:31 you're saying that it wouldn't be bullshit, no? 04:09:36 Not necessarily. 04:09:48 it means one is more focused with reaching the truth, as opposed to merely wanting to convince others of your own rightness 04:09:50 well yes, a paper about anything can theoretically be reasonable 04:10:00 monkeys n' typewriters, eh? 04:10:03 If it were written well, it would make a lot of sense in the field 04:10:10 but I'd wager the chances of making such an argument in a form *suitable to postmodernist journals* 04:10:16 and having it be coherent 04:10:17 is roughly nil 04:10:18 which journals are those 04:10:21 postmodernism is bullshit 04:10:28 what's postmodernism 04:10:35 Pthing: For instance, Social Text, subject of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair 04:10:41 apart from that 04:10:41 ah, ehird, but all things exist as examples to learn from--even bullshit 04:10:51 Pthing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism 04:10:54 Do your own research 04:10:55 hehe 04:11:00 'pataphysics!!! 04:11:03 ummm 04:11:09 i meant 04:11:14 The simple answer is that you can't define postmodernism because it's just a bunch of bullshit made to sound intellectual perpetrated by idiots 04:11:14 what do you understand postmodernism to mean 04:11:22 see 04:11:27 if you go around with a definition like that 04:11:28 I just answered your question before you asked it! 04:11:34 Causality, in your face 04:11:36 then obviously what you said is true 04:11:40 hehe 04:11:41 Pthing: yes, because my experience has shown it to be true, 04:11:46 experience of what 04:11:48 Pthing: just like you consider buckminster a kook 04:11:49 you see? 04:11:58 on the contrary 04:12:00 from your experience of his works, you conclude they're all bullshit 04:12:05 I think buckminster had some good ideas in there 04:12:06 and therefore you deduce that buckminster writes bullshit 04:12:10 this is called "reasoning" 04:12:13 I would not say that buckminster is bullshit 04:12:18 I would say he writes very boring books 04:12:20 hey, peoples, let the other person talk! oy vey! 04:12:22 i guess reasoning's a bit capitalist though 04:12:26 y'all are talking over each other 04:12:32 and, you know, male-oriented 04:12:35 that's hardly good debate from 04:12:47 Oranjer: with IRC, you can't make someone else's message unreadable; isn't it great 04:12:55 ummm 04:12:58 okay, ehird? 04:13:08 so what does it matter if you talk over another? 04:13:13 I have much the same opinion of the various philosophical schools that get accused of being postmodernist 04:13:14 quite simply 04:13:23 out of context is not in the meaning 04:13:28 which, incidentally, is a term the people themselves don't like to use 04:14:11 so, let's talk about post-capitalist rationalism as applied to geometry 04:14:20 as in, to avoid language games and talk past each other as much as possible, we should let the other person complete their thought 04:14:22 (just a thought) 04:14:22 i don't know how to 04:14:30 I know how to! 04:14:33 shut up, not you 04:14:34 bisociation, bitches! 04:14:37 (awwwwwww) 04:15:46 for that matter, come to think of it, "there's a lot of very boring writing about things nobody cares about, but there are a few gems of ideas" is a pretty good description of scientific journals in general 04:16:13 and of science in general, I would argue 04:16:18 anyway, I think that the general Euclidian approach is inherently biased in that it favours circles to squares, circles being the only uniform object, and I would like to consider a circle as a man, so we can see that the problem most be solved, in a post-capitalist feminist society, by reasoning that squares and circles are both equally round, thus collectivising roundness 04:16:39 that's so bullshit I almost believe it 04:16:59 but where would the functionality in subscribing "roundness" to both squares and circles? 04:17:26 also, the Euclidian approach favors circles to squares? I have seen no such thing--citations, please? 04:17:28 you still haven't explained what the shit functionality is 04:17:39 its use! can I use this? 04:17:41 If a property can be imagined, it is necessary. But biased properties are problematic. 04:17:45 They are inherently anti-feminist. 04:18:02 Oranjer: Clearly, uniformness is desirable: there is no discrimination between the different parts of a shape. 04:18:03 use it for what? 04:18:10 Thus, uniformness is feminist. 04:18:17 all you did was translate from latin to english 04:18:19 for whatever the Observer wishes to use it for, Pthing 04:18:21 Squares are not uniform, therefore they are inferior to circles. 04:18:33 you just used "use" to define "use" 04:18:40 And it is anti-collectivist discrimination. 04:18:40 meh 04:18:49 Squares have to answer to circles at the points where they differ from another point and circles do not. 04:18:52 This is not collectivist. 04:18:53 very, well, Pthing, I shall think about this 04:19:00 why 04:19:04 it won't lead anywhere 04:19:08 In conclusion, Euclidian geometry must be replaced with a post-capitalist, feminist, collectivist replacement that views circles and squares as equally round. 04:19:19 ehird, why are you doing this 04:19:24 as I have actually gone for some time assuming the definition of "functionality" as something hardly worth referring to 04:19:29 it isn't 04:19:34 as a consequence, it's not worth talking about 04:19:41 Pthing: It's more interesting than any other equally-bullshit thing we could be talking about. 04:19:43 Plus it's fun! 04:19:47 also, "It won't lead anywhere" is hardly evidence supporting its own claim 04:20:08 and yes, Pthing, it's not worth talking about because it has no use 04:20:25 so stop 04:21:08 Basically, I would argue that the only way to "prove" communication is if a goal is accomplished whose accomplishment's chances of occurring would have been greatly increased if the second party understood the communication 04:21:36 guys! 04:21:47 post-capitalist, feminist rationalism on geometry! 04:21:48 go go go 04:21:48 fffffffffffffffffffffff 04:21:48 and therefore, I would say a theory has functionality if the Observer can use it to accomplish a goal 04:22:03 stop 04:22:04 fuken 04:22:23 Chastisty is no waay to live life! 04:22:25 god I can't spell 04:22:30 haha, what? 04:22:32 http://nobodyscores.loosenutstudio.com/index.php?id=534 04:22:35 this reminds me of that 04:22:41 *Chastity *way 04:23:08 I thought you said "Chastity is no way of life! God can't spell!" 04:23:25 that, my friend, is also true 04:23:27 that is also true. 04:23:54 bah, I long ago learned to avoid any assumption of knowing an "absolute truth" 04:24:10 I instead use "valid according to what I have observed of this universe" 04:24:35 yes, I do turn all so-called objectivist, absolute statements into subjective relativism 04:24:36 yay! 04:24:41 I'M SORRY IN FUTURE I'LL AVOID SIMPLE, USEFUL TERMS THAT YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF IN CASUAL ENGLISH 04:24:45 ALSO THE USE OFF LOWERCASE 04:24:49 *OF 04:24:51 HAHA 04:24:56 THE FUTURE IS AWESOME 04:26:01 IN THE FUTURE WE HAVE DISCONTINUED LOWERCASE 04:26:05 IT IS OBSOLETED 04:26:20 WHO AUTHORIZED THAT CHANGE 04:26:49 also, Jesus Fuckin' Houdini did this get outa hand 04:27:37 I just want to create a functionally universal language that explicitly refers to its own abstraction and that which it does not cover! 04:28:05 Importing Jesus/Houdini porn from Hilbert-space is really not what the world needs right now. 04:28:11 sorry 04:28:40 also, I have determined that all such "mental" planes only exist in the meta-, and as such cannot carry on into this space 04:28:55 got any other semantically empty metaphysics? 04:29:14 :O 04:29:15 hardly 04:29:24 -!- madbrain has joined. 04:29:27 I'm working on an engine powered entirely on renowned rationalists rolling in their grave 04:29:32 and it could help to set it off 04:29:37 almost entirely clean energy 04:29:48 do you mean semantically empty because you do not know what I mean by the words I say, or because you know for a fact that what I say has no meaning? 04:29:54 we just need to keep making up enough bullshit by the time they stop rolling 04:30:03 it's because you're being BORING 04:30:08 there exists a distinct difference between the two 04:30:09 awwww 04:30:13 sorry, Pthing 04:30:17 :( 04:30:22 :(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 04:30:31 Oranjer: because I'm fairly sure any digression into what meaning you consider it to have will involve the words "subjectivity", "reality" and "epistemology" 04:30:35 and "metaphysics" 04:30:46 I will try to avoid those words 04:30:47 basically boiling down to "but. is. this. universe. even. REAL?" 04:30:52 haha 04:31:08 I love it when a movie ends in an existential crisis 04:31:49 I have yet to see a single one that does, I am afraid 04:32:11 then how do you know you love it 04:32:17 JUST ASKING THE OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE 04:32:38 very well, I shall amend my original statement as per your observation 04:33:14 my, my, there is some philosophical thought going in here 04:33:20 /I feel like I would enjoy/ a movie that ends in an existential crisis, if indeed such a movie exists 04:34:11 you see, ehird? From what I have seen, E-prime makes explicit those things that normally divide most sides of a disagreement 04:34:40 e-prime seems really superficial 04:34:51 yes, it is largely dealing with semantics 04:34:52 e-prime? that's the english without the verb to be? 04:34:53 BUT 04:34:59 yes, madbrain 04:35:02 BUT 04:35:10 I have used it for years in all my official documents 04:35:24 and I gotta tell ya, it makes you seem hell of smarter 04:35:46 like, a rationalist language that accounts for subjectivity on all levels, and integrates the scientific method and probability to have different levels of truth, so to speak 04:35:47 would be interestingn 04:35:50 *interesting 04:35:50 also, it has helped me cut through the curvy-turvies of most modern ethical dilemmas 04:35:59 but removing a few constructs from english does not a disambiguation make 04:36:04 I know! 04:36:12 I try to go beyond just removing "to be" 04:36:12 (or, less sillily worded, does not disambiguate :P) 04:36:20 e-prime looks silly to me 04:36:59 oh shit 04:37:01 e-prime 04:37:03 I also: try to avoid negations, try to avoid stative verbs, try to date and place my sentences, and try to make explicit the source(s) of the evidence my claims 04:37:12 it doesn't work 04:37:20 oh, bloody hell 04:37:22 try to avoid negations 04:37:23 why 04:37:24 on earth 04:37:27 it just makes you sound rehearsed for nothing in particular 04:37:27 do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing? 04:37:31 heh 04:37:47 You disagree with sounding rehearsed why...? 04:37:48 Oranjer: remember? all truths are valid independently of their reasoning method 04:37:53 oh yeah i forgot you'd built a religion about things working 04:37:55 ergo you demanding evidence is authoritarian 04:37:57 yes, quite 04:38:02 haha 04:38:08 epistemological anarchhism BACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKFIRE 04:38:11 *anarchism 04:38:13 in conclusion 04:38:24 well, adjectives come in 2 forms 04:38:25 because the effect of it is that you are making a grand show 04:38:27 you cannot challenge pthing's statement without making a claim as to what reasoning method he is using 04:38:28 with no content 04:38:33 which would be authoritarian and incorrect 04:38:36 HOWEVER 04:38:42 this itself may be untrue 04:38:44 as it was derived from logical reasoning 04:38:48 "The blue dog X" and "The dog is blue" 04:38:48 which, by epistemological anarchism 04:38:50 stack overflow 04:38:51 hardly, ehird--I say an idea's validity is independent of its source 04:38:53 core dumped 04:38:54 haha 04:38:54 what content there is is disguised in all this attempt to *sound* plain spoken 04:39:01 when instead you should just *be* plain spoken 04:39:06 *sigh* 04:39:07 rather than coming up with awkward theatrical tricks 04:39:27 you've used several rehearsed sentences so far repeatedly 04:39:29 one is this 04:39:31 do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing? 04:39:40 it's by means of a catchphrase, isn't it 04:39:45 WHAT 04:39:47 JESUS FUCK 04:39:50 ... 04:39:54 overreaction much? 04:39:54 I have no "catchphrase" 04:39:57 yes, ehird 04:40:01 I said what what, in the butt 04:40:08 In english, the epithet form of adjectives (The blue dog) is the default, and the attribute (The dog is blue) needs "to be", but there are plenty of languages where it's the other way around, ie adjectives are all verbs 04:40:10 I said what what, Jesus fuck 04:40:14 could make a good sequel. 04:40:23 I despise the overblowing of misunderstandings and an air of the assumption of veracity 04:40:31 I agree, ehird 04:40:33 do you realise that statement means nothing 04:40:38 i mean, just inquiring 04:40:46 I merely stated an opinion of my own 04:40:47 see 04:40:51 that is exemplary 04:40:57 you see, Pthing, that was hardly a catchphrase 04:40:58 can you think of a way to say what you just said 04:41:02 but *using fewer words* 04:41:04 I can 04:41:07 try! 04:41:13 I shall think about it, and come back 04:41:21 "defend that" 04:41:21 or 04:41:23 "evidence?" 04:41:26 isn't that another catchphrase? 04:41:26 oh snap that was hard 04:41:32 xD 04:41:34 this is fun 04:41:34 like you just said 04:41:38 I shall think about it, and come back 04:41:39 that before 04:41:42 oh 04:41:43 huh 04:41:49 you guys are thinking too hard about that stuff 04:41:49 well, it was hardly intentional 04:41:57 yes, madBRAIN 04:41:59 heh 04:42:04 madbrain: no, Oranjer is making bullshit and we're anti-bullshitting it :P 04:42:20 i think the reason this channel is so addictive is that it's brutally confrontational 04:42:26 aye, ehird 04:42:28 no doubt 04:42:42 even interest in a language is expressed with a prod for details and an implied criticism if the details are wrong beforehand 04:42:49 okay, Pthing, could you repeat what you said I should say in fewer words? 04:42:56 it works and it's fun 04:43:04 this is also typical 04:43:07 language is crazy 04:43:08 of the false precision 04:43:16 "could you repeat what you said I should say" 04:43:20 dammit 04:43:21 of circumcision 04:43:21 you can see why that's nonsense, right 04:43:23 the more and more you analyze it, the hairier your model gets :D 04:43:23 damn that almost rhymed 04:43:23 I forgot it 04:43:42 if I didn't say something once, *how can I repeat it* 04:43:43 i hate you pthing 04:43:43 :( 04:43:48 dammit 04:44:13 is it just me, or are we totally deconstructing Oranjer's reality piece by piece 04:44:15 Pthing, now you're just arguing semantics, and that's a dick move, and I fear it is made outa spite 04:44:22 poor guy didn't know what he was getting himself into 04:44:30 please don't say arguing semantics 04:44:33 actually, I suspected as muc, ehird 04:44:33 No, I am trying to show that you are talking in an unclear way 04:44:34 the whole point of e-prime 04:44:36 is "semantics" 04:44:42 general semantics, even 04:44:44 he's arguing exactly what e-prime aims for 04:44:53 and about that term in general 04:44:53 wtf?! 04:44:58 semantics is literally the meaning of EVERYTHING 04:45:00 what else CAN you argue 04:45:02 *sigh* Pthing, I believe you're operating under the misconception that I am using e-prime, now, in irc chat 04:45:05 but I am not 04:45:20 No, clues that you're not include the fact you keep using forms of "to be" 04:45:21 why not "I'm not" 04:45:30 i think "you're arguing semantics" means "you're making a criticism that i wish to dismiss as trivial because i don't want to reply to it" 04:45:31 However to return to your question. 04:45:35 What is it you wanted, exactly 04:45:39 did you want me to suggest a simpler form? 04:45:41 Oranjer: maybe instead of using e-prime you should disambiguate things like "you're arguing semantics" 04:45:42 a simple style choice, madbrain 04:45:58 no, Pthing 04:46:10 Only Data says "I am not" 04:46:11 then what did you want 04:46:36 I have forgotten what statement of mine you referenced when you suggested that I rephrase said statement using fewer words 04:46:42 Although you could want to avoid the contraction as a kind of style effect 04:46:44 damn Oranjer 04:46:45 worst sentence ever 04:46:47 amazing 04:46:48 anyway 04:46:50 want me to rephrase it for you? 04:46:50 the sentence was 04:46:50 sorry? 04:46:58 sure, ehird, why the fuck not 04:47:07 "What statement did you want me to rephrase with fewer words?" 04:47:07 "I despise the overblowing of misunderstandings and an air of the assumption of veracity" 04:47:14 ooh, okay 04:47:18 unlike the one you said, it's not an incomprehensible tongue-twister 04:47:20 yes, ehird, I prefer your version 04:47:44 the problem with yours is that it keeps referencing "the statement" in different ways 04:47:44 But yeah, e-prime is silly, there's probably a good reason why english uses "to be" all over the place 04:47:56 which means you have to constantly figure out what statement it refers to each time 04:48:00 yes, madbrain, it mainly uses it as a copula 04:48:08 *oy vey* 04:48:46 this is such fun 04:48:50 i love you guys 04:48:57 you need to be put in mental institutions. 04:48:57 did you come up with a plainer way to say that yet 04:49:14 holy shit, ehird, I just reread the sentence you're criticizing, and it really is pretty bad 04:49:24 you didn't notice? 04:49:26 no, Pthing 04:49:34 no, Pthing 04:49:49 despite your, uh, despising an air of the assumption of veracity 04:50:01 heh 04:50:21 Does the action of posting a sentence here indicate the level of certainty I place in it? 04:50:31 Besardles 04:50:40 Besardles! 04:50:51 yes, a portmanteau of Besides and Regardless 04:51:18 in the uh 04:51:19 spirit 04:51:20 yeah, most people spell that "Besides" 04:51:25 of epistemic theories that Just Work 04:51:32 have you been diagnosed with any actual mental disorders 04:51:33 THERE ARE NONE 04:51:39 they are AUTHORITARIAN 04:51:39 No, Pthing, I have not 04:51:46 or schizoid personality disorders? 04:51:50 nope! 04:51:57 well that is a mercy 04:51:58 Pthing: you have not ruled out the possibility that he hasn't given anyone the opportunity to 04:52:02 hehe 04:52:09 Pthing: why, does that make him any less crazy 04:52:10 i don't think so 04:52:19 i was curious 04:52:26 :( yay! ) 04:52:41 :( does not open a () pair, dude 04:52:52 says you with certainty? 04:52:58 yes. 04:53:02 it's called an opinion. 04:53:03 get used to it 04:53:18 yes, but an opinion masquerading as an absolute fact 04:53:42 obviously everything I say as "I think" 04:53:46 1+1 = 2 04:53:49 "obviously" 04:53:49 but I could be hallucinating the world 04:53:51 and my reasoning 04:53:54 You could 04:53:56 and therefore it could be false 04:53:56 therefore 04:53:58 I think 1+1 = 2 04:54:08 do you instantly believe everything people say? 04:54:10 (:( yay! ) 04:54:14 if not, then you already mentally insert "I think" 04:54:21 so there 04:54:31 actually, I do instantly believe everything people say 04:54:46 I then immediately test what they just said to my perception of reality 04:54:51 and I determine its validity 04:54:53 Oranjer does not exist 04:54:59 HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE ANYTHING NOW 04:55:01 YOU DON'T EXIST 04:55:02 HA 04:55:02 then you output a debug message informing them that this is what you are doing 04:55:04 apparently 04:55:16 i think i just killed him 04:55:18 usually, I do, Pthing? 04:55:24 Oranjer: you don't exist 04:55:25 you believe it yourself 04:55:28 okay 04:55:32 since you don't exist you have had no opportunity to test or doubt this 04:55:34 in conclusion 04:55:36 stop talking 04:55:39 :O 04:55:42 :O 04:55:50 stop 04:55:51 talking 04:55:55 nonexistant 04:55:56 thing 04:56:01 hmmmm this apparent paradox does reveal a flaw in my reasoning... 04:56:03 hmmmmmmmm 04:56:11 *nonexistent 04:56:23 also, can you not imagine a nonexistent, talking thing? 04:56:39 yes, but that doesn't mean it exists 04:56:43 it cannot exist, by definition 04:56:46 heh 04:56:53 and what does not exist cannot interact with reality, that is, the collection of things that exist 04:56:59 ah, geez 04:57:01 what now? 04:57:04 therefore, obviously a nonexistent, talking thing cannot talk to me 04:57:08 Hm, there's two ways to apply "nonexistant" 04:57:16 hey, Sgeo 04:57:17 It's nonexistent 04:57:18 At least, in context of imagining something 04:58:56 a tapestry of dicks 04:58:57 discuss 04:59:02 haha 04:59:07 no thanks 04:59:26 also, my believing that I do not exist does not preclude my existence 04:59:30 i don't think you can tile a plane with dicks 04:59:36 haha, what? 05:00:12 Oranjer: you believe that you do not exist, and a nonexistent thing patently cannot think in this world (by my prior reasoning) 05:00:22 therefore, by your own belief, you cannot consider whether you exist or not to later deny it 05:00:36 considering so would be to deny your belief 05:00:49 ah, but I am already thinking, and I can use that to invalidate such a beliefe 05:00:49 *belief 05:00:51 more so 05:01:14 Oranjer thinking is the most abhorrent activity he could do 05:01:15 who says I cannot deny a belief, once I believe it? I must deny it, in fact, to test it's validity 05:01:19 have fun being abhorrent 05:01:29 I disagree 05:01:43 ah, but before you disagreed you accepted it 05:01:47 couldn't you at least keep all your cartesian doubt in your inside voice 05:01:47 I did 05:01:50 so for that fleeting moment where you considered before denying it 05:01:53 you were abhorrent 05:01:57 I was 05:02:06 so you agree, your actions were abhorrent 05:02:12 but then I remembered many abhorrent things I have done in my past to invalidate that belief 05:02:14 and I cried 05:02:26 thus, even though the time is passed, you still consider them abhorrent by my reasoning 05:02:29 ergo... 05:02:34 uh no 05:02:40 that's totally flawed! whoa 05:02:45 [05:01] ehird: so for that fleeting moment where you considered before denying it 05:02:45 [05:01] ehird: you were abhorrent 05:02:46 [05:01] Oranjer: I was 05:02:48 it's what you thought yourself 05:02:52 I did 05:03:09 but I have since invalidated that belief 05:03:11 and therefore 05:03:14 meh, your mom 05:03:39 I believe I was acting abhorrent, but I do not still believe I was acting abhorrent 05:03:55 ad maternitum 05:03:56 "I believe X but I do not still believe X" 05:04:02 you phrased that wrong 05:04:08 "I believed I was acting abhorrent, but I don't now" 05:04:13 is what you meant 05:04:16 oh, sorry, thanks 05:05:34 anyway... 05:05:58 yeah, let's just put all that under several bridges 05:06:12 and stomp on it 05:06:18 One of my teachers suggested that languages become more isolative as they evolve 05:06:37 it does seem to be kind of a general rule yeah 05:07:04 I would agree 05:08:24 let's talk about candy floss. 05:08:50 what? 05:09:24 what exactly did I say that was unclear? 05:09:27 i said let's talk about candy floss. 05:09:40 I have no idea what that is 05:09:47 I think they implied that more isolative languages tended to have an advantage "against" less isolative ones 05:10:00 oh, that's a different claim entirely 05:10:16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_candy 05:10:18 discuss it 05:10:25 i gathered it wasn't so much an advantage as a result of what happens when morphosyntactic systems have to adjust to sound changes 05:10:37 (I'm just trying to move immediately from intellectual nonsense to candy floss, you understand) 05:10:42 oh, cotton candy, I had just googled it, indeed 05:10:49 which tend to afflict, like, the ends of words where often a lot of morphosyntactic information is kept 05:10:58 so agglutinative grammars become more fusional 05:11:02 ah, yes, Pthing, I had heard of that 05:11:02 which become more isolating 05:11:16 I compare that to genetic drift, really 05:11:35 anyway, cotton candy 05:11:42 I haven't had it in a while 05:12:09 have you, ehird? 05:12:12 wouldn't it be awesome if they made candy floss... that you could actually floss with 05:12:14 (no, it wouldn't) 05:12:45 Oranjer: nope! 05:12:48 I believe that would defeat the purpose of flossing--although, candy floss-flavored floss is pretty okay 05:13:11 I meant that as (candy floss)-flavored floss 05:13:25 not a candy version of floss that tastes like floss 05:14:03 pthing: Possibly... well, it's definitely the case of west european languages like French 05:14:34 "pthing:"? did you actually type that out 05:14:35 who does that 05:14:38 dunno if it applies to chinese though 05:14:45 but now, Pthing, what do you think about this so called advantage? 05:14:50 also, ehird, many do 05:14:54 i do not know what he means 05:14:55 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Leaving"). 05:14:56 they suck 05:14:58 but I obviously prefer the comma verson 05:14:58 so I do not know what to think 05:15:00 *version 05:15:05 Oranjer: i meant... 05:15:07 tab completion 05:15:08 fair enought, Pthing 05:15:19 who types out pthing, I type out p and press tab and get "Pthing:" 05:15:24 well, "Pthing: " 05:15:31 WHOA, really? 05:15:42 awesomes 05:15:49 I have never noticed that, thanks 05:15:56 >_< 05:15:57 i hate you all 05:16:01 sorry, ehird 05:16:16 you should know I only heard about irc two weeks ago 05:16:20 well, not heard 05:16:27 but I only started using it two weeks ago 05:17:13 this channel's been around since 2002! and if you could misinterpret that as me saying I've been around here since 2002, I'd have absolutely no qualms with that 05:17:23 uh okay 05:17:34 shush you 05:17:45 I hereby misinterpret to the conclusion that you have been around here since 2002 05:18:12 oh, it's like all of my dreams have suddenly come true 05:19:13 :( yay! ) 05:19:15 haha 05:20:00 Are you guys students or working? 05:20:10 me? neither 05:20:18 I have never worked an honest day in my life 05:20:28 is that really something to be proud of 05:20:37 not even a summer job? 05:20:42 anyway, I'm just a random kid 05:20:47 hi 05:20:50 no summer job 05:20:54 hello random kid 05:20:59 hello 05:21:22 are you a random consistent kid, or a consistently random kid? 05:21:34 do you change up randomly every type you type? 05:21:36 .. 05:21:36 haha 05:21:42 *time you type 05:21:46 FINE 05:21:50 i'm an arbitrary kid 05:21:53 yay 05:21:57 >:| 05:22:19 as I always say, multiplicity in validity likely indicates ambiguity 05:22:27 Pthing: ahem 05:22:28 ↑ 05:22:30 do your thing 05:22:58 sorry 05:23:13 also, what does that arrow mean as a logical connector? 05:23:32 "up" 05:23:38 i'm pointing up, see 05:23:42 oranjer: multiplicity in validity isn't always ambiguity, I'd think 05:23:43 to your message. 05:23:49 madbrain: STOP ENCOURAGING HIM 05:23:50 oh, okay 05:24:11 hey, ehird, let the madbrain explain its reasoning 05:24:27 also, I did not say always 05:24:36 I said "likely indicates" 05:25:13 I try to make explicit the difference between "rules followed" and "a pattern observed" 05:25:32 it all depends on what you're studying 05:26:06 oh? elucidate, please-o-please 05:26:14 in music theory, rules are often fuzzy and have multiple validity for instance 05:26:46 ah! what do you mean by these 'rules'? (I'm not trying to be pretensious, "rule" has a ton of meanings) 05:27:13 "rule" is a bit of a strong term yeah 05:27:20 I mean a rule as a procedure for generating the next step 05:27:43 also, madbrain, I think I should explain where I come from 05:28:38 I use the statement really to indicate my own dislike for the strict, slavish following of a largely arbitrarily chosen standard 05:28:48 as in, grading systems in most educational institutions 05:29:54 because different places have different definitions of an "A" on down, (and others use a different means of grading entirely), then there probably exists a disconnect with reality 05:30:32 yeah grades are kindof arbitrary in a way yes 05:30:45 as in, the existence of multiple claims to validity require either each to either be invalid, or to have a situational backing 05:31:38 I think they exist more as a technique to get students to work harder, figure out which student can get into a special program with only N places, and so on 05:32:00 ah! I am not questioning the invalidity of of the system 05:32:21 well then what's your point 05:32:26 I am merely asking "why do some places stop "A" at 90, and others stop it at 92?" 05:32:41 because A has to stop somewhere 05:32:49 each place presumably follows their own standard strictly 05:32:54 ah, but then why the difference? 05:33:17 because nobody decided to take the time to make a national standard probably, no? 05:33:20 the stopping point is chosen arbitrarily, and therefore, invalid, or it has a situational backing in research 05:33:44 a global standard, you mean--other countries use entirely different scales 05:33:50 it's not invalid 05:33:54 it's just that it's more convenient to say A 05:33:55 than 05:33:59 "80-90" 05:34:06 or are you saying that categorisation is inherently wrong? 05:34:09 It's not necessarily invalid 05:34:14 and that you cannot group related grades? 05:34:15 also, at some point the result system is going to have to be quantized 05:34:18 if so, them's fighting words; also stupid words 05:34:18 do you see that disjunction up there? 05:35:11 yes, madbrain, I would agree, within this current system, a form of grade quantification is largely necessary 05:35:26 but where do we draw the line between A and B? 05:36:25 arbitrarily, by definition 05:36:38 ah, I would disagree 05:37:26 Well, considering you have such grades as A- and B+ available, you can spread the grades in such a way so that all the grade range will have meaningful steps available 05:37:49 ah! exactly! that's hardly arbitrary criteria 05:38:03 it's like 05:38:05 also, I like "meaningful steps" 05:38:05 it's just shorthand for a range 05:38:09 these people are 70-90 05:38:16 it doesn't mean that someone below is bad 05:38:18 they could be 69, see? 05:38:26 it's just useful for general grouping 05:38:29 nothing to get worked up about 05:38:31 ... 05:38:35 *sigh* 05:38:44 i think you're giving too much importance 05:38:48 to simple aliases for ranges 05:38:54 I said, I do not disagree with the use of shorthand for grade ranges 05:39:16 I only disagree with arbitrarily chosen differences between the ranges 05:39:36 more than that 05:39:52 ah, i see 05:40:02 ah, cool 05:40:08 I think I've seen something along the line of 96%+ ->A+, 93%=A, 90=A-, 87=B+, 84=B, 81=B-, 78=C+, 75=C, 72=C-, 69=D+, 65=D 05:40:26 ah 05:40:47 but more than this 05:41:06 grading systems aren't the only systems that humans use that have arbitrarily determined facets 05:41:24 Sure, that's normal 05:41:26 mind you, most of that arbitrariness is necessary, as here 05:41:28 yes 05:41:29 BUT 05:41:57 Well, then, they use system with arbitrariness, the arbitrariness is necessary, what's the problem 05:42:37 I am concerned about what I have observed as a general inability for such systems to change according to new evidence, evidence that would render the set of available choices not-so-arbitrary 05:43:25 basically, I say that the arbitrariness should be made explicit, and not to be assumed as the absolutely correct choice 05:43:26 Ah, well then your problem is not with arbitrariness, it's with the general tendency for inertia 05:43:31 exactly 05:44:01 as i get more tired 05:44:01 you both get more boring 05:44:27 sorry, ehird 05:44:30 CANDY FLOSS 05:44:33 CANDY FLOSS 05:44:44 zomg 05:44:46 Well, the tendency for inertia is not any sort of philosophical problem 05:44:46 i totally agree 05:44:58 I would say it is 05:45:08 as it leaves a system open for fuck-ups 05:45:20 *the possibility of fuck-ups 05:45:31 That still has nothing to do with philosophy, that's more politics 05:45:47 hardly 05:46:21 mind you, this is getting dangerously close to us arguing "what is philosophy?", which may bore ehird to death 05:48:24 It's just based on all sorts of pragmatic reasons and decision making processes 05:48:36 okay, and? 05:48:44 There's nothing deep with it 05:48:49 Oranjer: my boredom is actually gnawing away at my intestine 05:48:55 sorry, ehird 05:49:02 "there's nothing deep with it" huh 05:49:06 uhhh 05:49:07 i should have a stroke in approximately five minutes 05:49:12 okay 05:49:24 ehird, t-5 min 05:49:40 my intestines really aren't liking this. 05:49:55 sorry 05:50:16 well then 05:50:17 om nom nom nom 05:50:18 shall we discuss my procedurally generated platforming game idea? or do you find that boring as well? 05:50:26 ooh, that sounds fun! 05:50:30 really? 05:50:46 I think designed gameplay is better than procedural 05:50:49 by procedural, you do mean based on past gameplay, as opposed to just random-given-these-constraints, right? 05:50:58 errrr 05:51:08 as in, the game generates levels that are hard for you to complete 05:51:14 mostly the latter, but it would work in the first 05:51:20 based on where you stumbled and succeeded at other points 05:51:24 yes! 05:51:29 thus, it really would keep getting harder and harder 05:51:33 actually, that's a good idea, I hadn't thought of that 05:51:41 a learning procedural game? oy vey 05:51:47 also, madbrain, why do you think so? 05:51:53 and what do mean by designed? 05:52:13 spend half an hour failing one jump and the next level is an optimal packing of as many of those jumps as possible :) 05:52:13 Like you put tiles/game objects/whatever explicitly in an editor of some sort 05:52:22 oooh 05:52:35 haha, that's a rather pathological case though 05:52:36 I disagree with your opinion, then, madbrain 05:53:15 yes, "designed" games as you say are more personal and what not, but I would like to see if the same effect can result from procedurally generated content 05:53:23 you see, ehird... 05:53:26 I think that procedurally generated levels, while having a certain diversity, can't have the depth of a designed level 05:53:31 heh 05:53:33 madbrain: Hey! 05:53:35 them's fighting words 05:53:39 hehe 05:53:40 equivalent to "strong AI cannot exist" 05:53:49 it's okay, he's right--well, he's right now 05:53:51 which is simply false, unless you make ridiculous spiritual assumptions 05:54:09 Oranjer: yes, currently, procedural generation cannot match the depth of designed levels 05:54:16 yeah, I agree with ehird--we don't want no goddamn bio-chauvinists here 05:54:16 Well, as of yet, based on what I've seen, it is true 05:54:18 it can be useful in areas other than total design of a level 05:54:19 however 05:54:21 long-term 05:54:27 but but but 05:54:32 the possibility of strong AI means that we can have perfect procedural levels 05:54:36 Of course if someone designs some miraculous AI algorithm then this might change 05:54:40 well, as good as us, at least 05:54:47 It's not miraculous 05:54:49 I made the lack of emotional attachment to the content an explicit issue 05:54:58 Given a planet-sized supercomputer, we could simulate a human brain today 05:55:02 But as of now that strong AI does not exist yet 05:55:04 It'd just be really, really tedious 05:55:08 hey! no AI talk here! come on!!! 05:55:10 dammit 05:55:14 Oranjer: whyever not? 05:55:32 well, we all already agree on it 05:55:36 madbrain: I'd content that strong AI does exist... 's called homo sapiens :P 05:55:41 Oranjer: It's fun, though! 05:55:43 heh 05:56:03 I know...but I had some other ideas central to my game that I wanted to share...:( 05:56:06 be careful about telling the AI to make fun levels first thing, though 05:56:18 they'll just replace the whole universe with a huge level 05:56:21 singularity first, games later!! 05:56:24 heh 05:56:25 Oranjer: sure, go on :P 05:56:29 okay, thanks 05:57:10 the first step was to ignore all previous assumptions about the traditional divisions between "enemy", "object", "npc", "wall", "platform" 05:57:22 oh dear 05:57:24 is this like 05:57:28 gamestemological anarchism 05:57:32 hardly, no 05:57:37 you are a wall, a platform, an enemy, an object, an npc, and the player 05:57:39 AND SO IS EVERYTHING ELSE 05:57:42 NO! 05:57:46 the player is a constant 05:57:46 they are all equally valid methods of game objecting 05:57:51 yes, they are 05:58:02 TYPECASTING GAME OBJECTS TO ONE OF THEM IS FASCSISM 05:58:04 and yes, there can be a wall/platform/enemy/object/npc 05:58:07 *FASCISM 05:58:13 goddammit ehird 05:58:24 you do realise you can talk while i blabber, right? 05:58:26 oranjer: sounds like a good step to try to design a new genre but what did you came up with from that position? 05:58:29 yes 05:58:36 not a new genre, madbrain 05:58:52 I simply intend to suggest an alternative means of categorization 05:59:06 dependent solely on a /thing/'s relation to the player 05:59:14 well what's your new categorization 05:59:16 meaningful relationships of game objects 05:59:25 because each thing's characteristics are determined randomly 06:00:07 uh ok 06:00:14 so, if something has a combination of the characteristics of "removes health from player when the player touches it" and "moves toward player when it enters within X units", then the player would likely classify that as an "enemy" 06:00:35 this is sounding like one of them over-complex rpg-style thingummies :P 06:00:41 not rpg! not at all 06:00:49 I mean tabletop sort of thing 06:00:53 it is hardly complex, merely a platformer 06:00:54 oohhh 06:00:55 Ontological object system! shut up I just want to shoot some things that are shooting me 06:00:56 ha 06:01:01 heh 06:01:12 and what are your other characteristics? 06:01:19 oh, many, madbrain 06:01:38 but it's hardly worth it to go on with listing that list here 06:01:49 also, how do you ensure that more or less any combination is possible 06:02:05 context-specific generation, of course 06:02:06 ALSO 06:02:11 `addquote oohhh ha heh and what are your other characteristics? oh, many, madbrain but it's hardly worth it to go on with listing that list here 06:02:13 93| oohhh ha heh and what are your other characteristics? oh, many, madbrain but it's hardly worth it to go on with listing that list here 06:02:36 that the player can, at any time, press a single key to skip the current level 06:02:48 so as to avoid even the possibility of the generation of an impossible level 06:02:54 of course, this posed a problem 06:02:57 that I stated before 06:03:01 but then he could skip all the levels yeah 06:03:24 well, there's an unlimited number of levels, as each level is generated when you start it 06:03:28 just make it so that progression in the level difficulty, setting, reward etc, 06:03:29 but the problem was 06:03:32 depends on how much you achieive 06:03:35 *achieve 06:03:44 so skipping generates a new level, but doesn't let you get any further, so to speak 06:03:52 it's a level from the same prototype 06:04:17 "how do I convince the player to explore each level instead of just holding down the skip button until they see something they like?" 06:04:33 heh 06:04:39 (rewards was my answer--specifically, rewards the player can carry through and use throughout the levels 06:05:02 and no, ehird, the skip button would likely generate an entirely different level--but that's a good suggestion, thanks 06:05:15 oh, of course 06:05:18 I just mean parameters like 06:05:20 difficulty 06:05:22 well, the most rewarding thing in a game is to be presented with a hard task, needing many tries, and eventually solving it 06:05:29 what selection of enemies can be used 06:05:29 etc 06:05:57 true, so I guess that is a good idea 06:06:01 I see what you two mean now 06:06:17 that the completion of a level is rewarded with more challenging levels later on 06:06:29 (dammit, saying that seems so obvious) 06:06:43 Oranjer: i think you should try out each separate idea in a little minigame before combining them 06:06:50 the procedural generation + objects based on aspects instead of a predefined type 06:06:53 separately 06:06:54 or...make them multiple options? 06:07:01 I mean as prototypes 06:07:02 Like, the best levels in lemmings are the ones that are short, not tedious, but really complicated 06:07:07 since doing both at once would be quite a task 06:07:11 hmmm 06:07:15 Oranjer: have you played infinite mario? 06:07:21 yes, I have! 06:07:32 I actually found that after I thought up this idea 06:07:37 Oranjer: imagine infinite mario bros, but done with procedural generation 06:07:41 Oranjer: the anti-player procedural genereration 06:07:48 exactly my point, ehird 06:07:54 do it in screenfuls 06:07:55 what do you mean by anti-player? 06:08:00 when you go past one screen 06:08:06 it generates a new screen and scrolls on to it 06:08:07 (except smoother) 06:08:09 ahhhh 06:08:10 hmmm 06:08:12 (so not screenfuls, do it by column) 06:08:12 Oranjer: and 06:08:16 Oranjer: it'd be based on where you stumbled 06:08:23 if you stay in one place trying to execute a jump 06:08:30 then there'll be more of that kind of jump 06:08:33 if you keep dying because of an enemy 06:08:36 (you'd have multiple lives) 06:08:42 that enemy would be more common 06:08:47 oh, you'd have infinite tries for each level, of course 06:08:54 what i mean is 06:08:55 if you die 06:08:59 you go back to where you were before your dying move 06:09:10 since in this mini game thing, there'd just be one big level 06:09:12 anyway, every time the screen scrolls right to reveal another few columns, it's optimised against you 06:09:22 based on what you've been failing and succeeding at in the recent past 06:09:23 reminds me of Bastet 06:09:29 short for Bastard Tetris 06:09:30 exactly! 06:09:33 awesomes 06:09:35 hmmm 06:09:36 so basically, the level itself, until you stop playing, 06:09:40 actually reflects how you played in its structure 06:09:44 Basplatformer 06:09:47 Basplat 06:09:50 DUDE 06:09:53 i think it'd be great fun, and probably not too hard to implement 06:10:04 well, ehird, no offense, but that's your idea 06:10:10 cloning infinite mario is easy, so it's just a procedural generator + some parameter tweaking based on past performance 06:10:15 I'm glad that I sorta inspired that 06:10:16 but 06:10:16 Oranjer: i was just giving one example of an idea 06:10:24 I know, ehird 06:10:40 like, something like that has enough value in itself, that i think you could look into something similar before the combined version 06:10:41 but it seems that what you suggest is...not...exactly...what I had in mind 06:10:46 because combining all the aspects would be a pain 06:10:50 Oranjer: as i said, it was an example 06:10:50 heh 06:10:54 I know! 06:10:57 of how you can make a game entirely based around one part 06:11:05 which is good ffor prototyping them 06:11:18 but I think it's a good enough example that one could, nay, should make an entirely separate game about that 06:11:45 and therefore, if you want, you should 06:12:13 damn it 06:12:14 i never could get the hang of pygame and the like 06:12:18 oh, ha 06:12:28 I could never get the hang of python 06:12:40 impressive 06:12:45 oh? 06:12:50 how can you not get the hang of python? it's ridiculously orthodox and simple 06:12:58 no, not the language 06:13:01 the implementation 06:13:07 the...interface...thing 06:13:14 because of slowness? 06:13:16 no 06:13:25 what then, the REPL? 06:13:34 because I have no fucking clue what it does! 06:13:40 ??? 06:13:48 how does one write a program in python? 06:13:57 put it in a file, save it, "python file.py" 06:13:58 in a text editor, then saving it as...? what? 06:14:00 OH 06:14:02 GODDAMMIT 06:14:09 do you use windows or something? 06:14:13 WHY THE FUCK WAS THAT SO HARD FOR ME TO FIND 06:14:20 ...o_O 06:14:27 of Course I use windows, because I am in idiot 06:14:46 yeah, i was wondering how you could possibly have trouble with running the python command :) 06:14:47 next: how do I run the .py file? 06:14:53 python file.py 06:14:53 exactly, ehird 06:15:00 what the hell does that mean? 06:15:06 Oranjer: have you... installed ... python? 06:15:07 do I type that somewhere? 06:15:09 I have 06:15:17 it should have added IDLE to your menus. 06:15:27 heh, menu"s" 06:15:27 find the Python menu, and open IDLE. 06:15:33 menu, whatever 06:15:35 heh 06:15:39 actually, I have Enso 06:15:51 I use capslock as a sorta quasimodal command line 06:15:59 I hold down capslock, anywhere, 06:16:02 i know what enso is 06:16:05 and it's explicitly non-modal 06:16:07 awesomes! 06:16:12 it was made by the son of jef raskin after all 06:16:24 holy shit, mate, you're the first person who knew all that stuff outside of me telling you 06:16:27 awesomes! 06:16:38 interaction design is awesome. 06:16:41 yes! 06:17:00 (mind you, I love to take the whole quasimode idea perhaps a bit too far) 06:17:08 so, I open up IDLE 06:17:18 and I type python filename.py 06:17:21 no 06:17:24 oh? 06:17:29 IDLE is a GUI interface to python, and an editor for it 06:17:32 uh 06:17:37 I...uh...what 06:17:37 if you're using windows, the command line has totally anemic facilities 06:17:40 so no point using it 06:17:48 so, I don't use IDLE? 06:17:48 Oranjer: what's there is a python console 06:17:51 use IDLE 06:17:56 it pops up a python shell 06:17:57 you can enter lines of python 06:17:58 okay 06:18:02 and see the results just by pressing enter 06:18:07 you can also open and save files (with syntax highlighting) 06:18:11 so, I type in IDLE "python filename.py 06:18:12 " 06:18:16 no 06:18:18 dammit 06:18:19 you run the program IDLE 06:18:20 what? 06:18:21 okay 06:18:28 it's a windows program included with the Python distribution 06:18:31 yep 06:18:45 I just opened it 06:18:48 it pops up a python shell, where you can enter lines of python and see the results by hitting enter 06:18:53 okay 06:18:55 you can also open and save files with python syntax-highlighting 06:19:04 so, how do I open filename.py? 06:19:11 and press F5 or F8 or something (see the menus for the shortcut) to run the current file in the shell 06:19:14 Oranjer: see the IDLE menus. 06:19:21 oy vey 06:20:05 being a programmer on windows is a pain... unless you use microsoft languages... 06:20:06 okay, I just went to File...Open...and I found a .py file on my computer 06:20:19 it's a gui, it's all in the menus, including the shortcuts 06:20:23 it opened up some code 06:20:24 just poke around 06:20:31 do I press enter? 06:20:36 no 06:20:40 :O 06:20:42 only the window that IDLE first opened is the shell 06:20:45 the other windows are file windows 06:20:48 okay 06:20:52 I have a file window open 06:20:57 and the shell? 06:21:03 it is also open 06:21:15 right, in one of the menus in the file window there's a Run Module command 06:21:19 ah 06:21:20 okay 06:21:26 that will reset the current shell session 06:21:28 and run the file 06:21:36 uh, okay 06:21:38 you can experiment with code by entering it in the shell, then moving it to the file 06:21:47 uh okay 06:21:55 why hu 06:21:57 *uh 06:22:12 because there is on run module anywhere 06:22:20 there is only Open Module... 06:22:22 ooooooookay let me open IDLE haven't used it in ages 06:22:39 I found it 06:22:43 under Shell 06:22:46 it says restart shell? 06:22:53 no 06:22:54 the menu is 06:22:56 oh 06:22:57 Run -> Run Module 06:23:02 in the file 06:23:04 OH 06:23:20 you said in the shell's menu's...or...I heard that....dammit 06:23:52 huh okay the file had an error but I think it "worked" 06:24:14 just make a file with 06:24:16 print "Hello, world!" 06:24:17 in it 06:24:20 guaranteed to work :P 06:24:23 okay 06:24:29 hmmm 06:24:46 it seems I have forgotten (given up on after all this didn't work for me) the language 06:24:56 bastard tetris might be unwinnable 06:25:07 all tetris is unwinnable, madbrain 06:25:08 heh 06:25:23 Oranjer: anyway, you can enter lines into the shell to test out new code 06:25:28 do you mean it is impossible to get any lines, madbrain? 06:25:34 oh, okay 06:25:36 Oranjer: as a tip, until you need to have the "final" thing 06:25:43 Oranjer: ready to run as a thing in itself, that is 06:25:46 okay 06:25:53 put all the stuff in functions and classes 06:25:56 and have a main() function 06:25:59 so that you can press run module 06:26:00 uh 06:26:03 and it'll actually load the module in the shell 06:26:09 so everything in your file is in the shell 06:26:14 and you can run code as if it was in the file 06:26:16 to test things, etc 06:26:17 debug 06:26:24 uhhhhh 06:26:36 i wish people wouldn't say uhh to really simple stuff :| 06:26:56 simple? simply to you--I say uhhhh because I know it is simple to you, but I do not understand it 06:27:26 what part 06:27:38 uh 06:27:45 "shell" 06:28:03 the shell is the python shell window that IDLE opens at the start 06:28:07 okay 06:28:13 you can enter some python code, hit enter, and see the results 06:28:17 (type 2+2 in it and hit enter) 06:28:26 okay 06:28:39 an error comes up when I type in main() function 06:28:45 type in what exactly 06:28:55 "main() function" 06:29:13 also, a different error when I just type in "main()" 06:29:23 when did I say "main() function" was valid python code 06:29:35 (1:25:37 AM) ehird: put all the stuff in functions and classes 06:29:35 (1:25:40 AM) ehird: and have a main() function 06:29:35 (1:25:44 AM) ehird: so that you can press run module 06:29:42 :? 06:29:49 yes, that is, have a function called main() 06:29:54 okay 06:30:01 I typed in "main()" 06:30:04 that did not work 06:30:12 presumably, you have not defined a function called main(). 06:30:16 uhh 06:30:19 def main(): 06:30:22 oh, okay 06:30:32 then type the body in indented code 06:30:34 sweetness 06:30:39 then have a non-indented line 06:30:43 it auto-indents, coppro. 06:30:43 yeah, using whitespace as blocks is awesome 06:30:48 (IDLE that is) 06:30:57 yeah, I remember that 06:31:00 hey, coppro 06:31:00 just hit enter twice after the last line and it's defined 06:31:01 however 06:31:05 defining main() in the shell is pointless 06:31:09 oh? 06:31:11 hey 06:31:15 ehird: I don't use IDLE 06:31:18 coppro: he does. 06:31:20 Oranjer: it's just to put your stuff in in a file 06:31:25 Oranjer: the shell is a line-by-line interpreter 06:31:29 Oranjer: so that you can hit Run Module, and instead of running your whole program and exiting 06:31:29 what file? 06:31:46 coppro: are you getting the distinct feeling of bashing your head against a brick wall? 06:31:51 ehird: very 06:31:59 i think Oranjer is leaking memories, first he forgot the shell that i explained earlier, then the file he had open... 06:32:05 anyone for Omega Chess? 06:32:22 -!- rodgort has changed nick to ivank`. 06:32:25 oh, that file? the file I opened? 06:32:30 any file 06:32:33 okay... 06:32:33 playing mario while constantly holding the go faster button is hard 06:32:38 haha 06:32:53 that means you can't shoot fire 06:32:57 "In this quarter-second, you will discover there is a large gaping chasm in front of you" 06:33:03 :O 06:33:04 ehird: which emulator? 06:33:07 are you playing basmario? 06:33:11 well, not mario, Infinite mario bros 06:33:14 oh 06:33:26 the worst part is enemies 06:33:30 you just gotta hope you don't run into any 06:33:37 the VBA distributed with Ubuntu has some issues :( 06:33:47 okay so uh how do I manipulate files in the shell? 06:34:08 Oranjer: like, what do you mean 06:34:10 what do you want to do 06:34:14 uh 06:34:15 Oranjer: the shell is where you type in code 06:34:17 haha i just walked the fuck under one of those jumpy pipe flower things 06:34:22 coppro: misleadingg 06:34:22 yeah 06:34:24 *misleading 06:34:26 python runs the code 06:34:30 haha 06:34:50 a file is where you put python code 06:34:55 you tell python to run that file 06:34:59 python runs the code 06:35:09 okay, so, in the shell, I define main()--how do I put that in a file? 06:35:14 no 06:35:15 without copypasting? 06:35:20 no? okay 06:35:22 sorry 06:35:26 you don't define main in a shell 06:35:28 because you don't need it 06:35:29 only forth works like that :P 06:35:33 uh 06:35:40 I defined main() in a shell 06:35:42 I've a feeling we've gone about 7,429 steps ahead of Oranjer, coppro 06:35:51 Oranjer: do you program at all? 06:35:57 not recently 06:36:01 as in, at all 06:36:04 hm 06:36:06 that would do it 06:36:10 "not recently, as in, at all"? 06:36:12 anyways, I have to go to bed 06:36:14 is that a way of saying "no"? 06:36:16 have fun with ehird :P 06:36:19 designing a processor is hard 06:36:20 I'm used to html/javascript/css 06:36:29 only javascript is a language out of all of those. 06:36:33 I know 06:36:35 that's me point 06:36:38 what ehird said 06:38:03 what now? 06:38:19 wellllllll 06:38:31 is anyone interested in sound synthesis? 06:38:33 i'm sorta not going to teach you the entire practice of programming from scratch, I'm afraid 06:38:37 madbrain: Gregor 06:38:43 no, ehird, that is not necessary 06:38:45 coppro: um, no 06:38:49 he's interested in algorithmic composition 06:38:55 ehird: close enough 06:38:57 Oranjer: read a tutorial. They suck almost unilaterally, but whatever. 06:38:59 to sound synthesis? 06:39:00 um, no 06:39:06 I have, coppro, most of it 06:39:09 Oranjer: diveintopython.org 06:39:13 it's slightly outdated 06:39:14 and flawed 06:39:14 but eh 06:39:17 mark pilgrim is cool 06:39:31 also, madbrain, are you refering to the maxim that "every two songs are remixable together"? 06:39:34 also, decide if you want P3K, which is new and shiny, or 2.6, which is old bnut works 06:39:37 *referring 06:39:40 no 06:39:43 you don't want p3k 06:39:44 srsly 06:39:46 s/bnut/but/ 06:39:51 okay 06:40:06 No I'm not referring to algorithmic composition 06:40:36 what are you referring to then? Don't keep us guessing! 06:40:44 sound synthesis. 06:40:49 uh 06:40:50 okay 06:40:56 that's what he said. 06:40:59 any...alternative names for that concept? 06:41:01 I'm referring to basically synthesizing sound from parameters 06:41:05 oh! 06:41:10 ie like a synthesizer keyboard 06:41:22 or sound chip or plugin etc 06:41:30 oh! that's the opposite idea i had when I said the previous oh! 06:42:42 Like, suppose your synthesizer is controlled by midi, when you get a message to generate a D5, how do you do it? 06:42:59 uh 06:43:06 what does that mean? 06:43:16 a message from what? 06:44:27 well, usually it comes from a MIDI keyboard (ie physical keyboard that the user is playing on) or a sequencer (ie software that plays a recorded sequence of notes/controllers/etc) 06:44:40 okay 06:45:35 sound synthesis is actually a very neat concept 06:45:55 obviously, depending on which algorithm you use, you get different sounds 06:46:04 coppro: yeah 06:46:09 okay 06:47:26 (my game)-->(making games)-->(pygame)-->(me learning how to use python! finally!) //// (sound synthesis) 06:47:33 heh 06:47:48 i'm unsure of what //// means 06:47:49 like, one popular algorithm is to play a recording of an instrument note faster or slower 06:48:33 I guess //// means "completely unrelated"--I guess I could have used a semicolon, but that hardly connotes the cutting motion 06:48:46 oranjer: well, that's because your library handles the audio mixing and stuff for you 06:49:08 okay 06:50:08 so what about it? 06:50:17 sound synthesis: what now? 06:50:21 which might be more or less complex depending on what music format you use 06:50:39 oranjer: well, I was just curious if anyone else in here was interested in the topic 06:50:55 oh, no, please, continue, I'm fine with the subject at hand 06:51:22 but I think my connection's woozy, and I think I am receiving comments much later after you send them 06:51:33 so to me, I think, it's some silence 06:51:58 like, if it's .mid, obviously it's going to be played on some sort of synthesizer 06:52:05 okay 06:52:47 .mp3 or .ogg will be decoded ofc 06:53:02 oh 06:54:11 fungot 06:54:12 Oranjer: i think i have a makefile? i 06:54:18 heh, sorry 06:54:41 madbrain? you there? 06:54:44 yeah 06:54:45 ehird? coppro? 06:54:47 oh, okay 06:54:49 no 06:54:53 okay 06:55:14 heh espernet is netsplitting like crazy 06:55:26 well basically uhh I kinda wanna talk about my game if it's uh---what, madbrain? 06:55:33 netsplitting? 06:56:08 netsplit is when irc servers have connection problems and disconnect from each other 06:56:14 oh 06:56:21 i wish Oranjer could carry on conversations about everything else as uncluelessly as he does random epistemology crap 06:56:21 wait, irc servers are connected to each other? 06:56:25 :P 06:56:27 Oranjer: yes. 06:56:30 heh 06:56:35 freenode, efnet, all the networks, are made up of a bunch of connected servers 06:56:37 to handle all the loud 06:56:38 that is 06:56:41 ohhh 06:56:42 each network is a network of servers 06:56:45 the networks aren't linked 06:56:49 ah! 06:56:55 when two servers in a network disconnect, each sees the people from the other leave 06:57:00 until whatever happened is fixed 06:57:02 then I fear I have been using the wrong terminology 06:57:12 (usually they automatically return in a minute or two due to automatic restarting of the server) 06:57:23 whoa 06:57:59 wait, uncluelessly? what do you mean by that? 06:58:14 oh, nevermind 06:58:18 you keep going "uhh" and stuff :P 06:58:22 oh, sorry 06:58:30 i'm just kidding 06:58:33 I shall cease all such utterances immediately 06:59:32 oranjer: well, what sort of stuff are you interested in? 06:59:38 oh boy 06:59:55 changing the world, of course 06:59:58 madbrain: come on, mere minutes into him entering here 07:00:04 i would have been able to tell you 07:00:06 that asking that of him 07:00:11 is a very bad idea 07:00:19 ~ 07:00:25 run! RUN! This place may be safe again in a few years! 07:00:47 using nomics for a greater purpose then survival--as in, the nomic creates something bigger and more persistent than itself 07:01:20 yeah..that's actually it 07:01:32 I mean, you already know I'm working on a characteristica universalis 07:01:57 changing the world, greater-than-self nomic 07:02:03 two goals of equal importance and magnitude. 07:02:12 yep, I guess 07:02:29 what nomics do you play 07:02:31 I mean, have you heard of esquisite corpse? 07:02:54 only one right now--BlogNomic, but I've played face-to-face nomic before 07:03:01 esquisite isn't actually a word 07:03:03 oh. BlogNomic. 07:03:18 exquisite 07:03:21 thank you 07:03:28 exquisite corpse, then? 07:03:54 hellos? 07:03:58 mhm 07:04:14 exquisite corpse, the surrealist art game? 07:04:35 heard of it, haven't tried it 07:04:35 where each person down the line gets a bit of information on what the previous person did, adds to it, and passes it on? 07:04:40 oh! it's fun 07:04:53 great game in school when you're bored 07:05:04 anyway 07:05:23 I had the idea that the players would also specify a set of themes for each turn 07:05:35 funny, that's sort of like the thingy i made. 'cept not really. 07:05:35 all of these are games 07:06:33 like, for the first section, the theme would be "fire", next would be "fire" and "guitarcar", then "fire", "guitarcar", "ocean", then "guitarcar", "ocean", "Mario", etc. 07:06:41 it starts over every three themes 07:06:44 ANYWAY 07:06:57 I like... music, programming, comics, phonetics.... that kind of stuff 07:07:01 I wondered why no one had made a nomic exquisite corpse 07:07:02 ah 07:07:17 well, I'm interested in human-computer interfaces 07:07:28 Scott McCloud, Jef Raskin, etc. 07:08:04 ehird know the latter--do you know the former? 07:08:17 you mean like the infinite canvas thing? 07:08:29 yes! but more than that, of course 07:08:49 scott mccloud finds a comic guy 07:08:58 how's that related to hci 07:09:03 HAHAHAHAHAHA 07:09:05 heh, he made the google chrome comic. 07:09:19 ha ha ha ha to you too 07:09:20 you...you just asked me...how...it's...related...to "X"....heh 07:09:39 dunno... the web seems to have settled on a different standard than infinite canvas, which you could describe as "finite width but infinite height" 07:09:47 I was about to say that that is my main interest--juxtaposition 07:09:57 yeah, I am saddened by that, madbrain 07:10:03 on a more relevant note 07:10:09 oh, ehird? 07:10:11 well, it still has hyperlinks 07:10:13 how is scott mccloud related to interaction design if this is the same guy 07:10:30 ehird, how are tacos related to the moon? 07:10:41 is that meant to be interesting? 07:10:43 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 07:10:46 no, it is not 07:10:49 [07:07] Oranjer: well, I'm interested in human-computer interfaces 07:10:49 [07:07] Oranjer: Scott McCloud, Jef Raskin, etc. 07:10:49 [07:08] Oranjer: ehird know the latter--do you know the former? 07:10:53 i see in no way how scott mccloud relates to the rest of those three lines 07:11:04 so instead of a static order of pages of finite width and height, you get a dynamic order of pages of finite width but infinite height 07:11:17 Kinda like movie tropes 07:11:20 displays are a main part of human-computer interfacing, ehird 07:11:27 oh, tv tropes! what now? 07:11:34 Oranjer 07:11:35 yeah tv tropes 07:11:38 as far as i can tell 07:11:41 why the dice, ehird? 07:11:49 you've mentioned a random comic guy 07:11:54 yep 07:11:54 and then said some totally unrelated things 07:11:59 this somehow tying him to HCI 07:12:01 i don't buy it 07:12:03 that I consider integral to human-computer interfacing 07:12:03 tv tropes is so browsable that it enters the cycle of life 07:12:09 what... comics? 07:12:14 not comics 07:12:19 displaying of information 07:12:27 of which comics is only a part 07:12:32 ie browsing 1 page makes you browse 1+e other pages 07:12:38 heh 07:12:42 Oranjer 07:12:45 yes, ehird 07:12:47 calling every comic artist in the world 07:12:50 an HCI person 07:12:57 is, what's the word, stupid 07:13:04 Eh 07:13:14 heh, no, because McCloud has made some cool ideas regarding HCI 07:13:20 SEE 07:13:22 why didn't you tell me that 07:13:23 I want to make comics eventually, but I lack funny ideas 07:13:24 when i was first aasking 07:13:27 how the hell he was related 07:13:33 as opposed to giving me some meaningless pap 07:13:40 Which is too bad because I've gotten not so bad at drawing 07:13:56 sorry, ehird, I have never, ever, ever, encountered a meaningless gap 07:14:10 wut 07:14:10 oh, madbrain? you need funny? 07:14:20 funny is hard 07:14:21 "sorry, ehird, I have never, ever, ever, encountered a meaningless gap" 07:14:22 what 07:14:30 as in, ehird, these "gaps" you speak of I find integral to creativity 07:14:42 I have found it called "bisociation" 07:14:47 what are you even talking about 07:14:51 as opposed to mere association 07:14:58 links coming up, I guess 07:15:17 madbrain: Oranjer is defending dodging my question "how does scott mccloud relate to HCI" before giving in and giving me a straight answer. 07:15:36 deliberately being obstructive with communication is not a good policy to get people to continue to talk to you 07:16:01 sorry, ehird, I apologize for any miscommunication on our part 07:16:02 well, scott mccloud gave a series of ideas of how to expand comics in a popular book, most of which are unpractical 07:16:15 Oranjer: miscommunication? but you just defended it 07:16:22 uh, what? 07:16:26 anyway 07:16:32 some of those ideas join HCI stuff, but it's kindof a tenouous gap 07:16:37 "as in, member:ehird, these "gaps" you speak of I find integral to creativity" 07:16:39 argh 07:16:41 stupid colloquy 07:16:44 heh 07:16:51 okay, I shall resayit 07:17:03 ehird: I have no idea what that sentence even means 07:17:14 he's the one who said it 07:17:17 yes 07:18:07 I am interested in applying and synthesizing the ideas of Scott McCloud, Jef Raskin, and others to Human-Computer Interfacing 07:18:10 there 07:19:04 Oranjer: should I go to bed (I feel safe in asking you this because the chance you will give me a straight answer is roughly zero) 07:19:19 do you want to go to bed? 07:19:41 i don't know! 07:19:56 oh, ha! I just reread the text up there 07:20:00 it seems I misread you 07:20:07 ehird: will you have 8 hours of sleep? :D 07:20:16 when you said "meaningless pap", i thought you said "meaningless gap" 07:20:20 sorry :( 07:20:25 madbrain: um, probably? :P 07:20:29 Oranjer: xD 07:20:36 you're amusing 07:20:39 ... 07:20:48 like a dog changing its own tail, except... intellectually... chasing its own tail... 07:20:52 except not really like that at all 07:20:55 uh 07:20:57 okay 07:21:21 oranjer: do you do conlangs? 07:21:53 what do you mean by do? am i familiar with them? do I know any? yes, no 07:22:26 I mean, I am in the process of creating a universal language, so I suppose I do conlangs 07:22:45 kinda like esperanto or lojban? 07:22:56 no thanks, those are hardly "universal" 07:23:15 well yeah 07:23:25 It would be very difficult to form or invent this language or characteristic, but very easy to learn it without any dictionaries. 07:23:32 that's my main criteria 07:23:34 dunno for lojban but esperanto is afaik basically a romance language 07:23:40 heh 07:23:59 oranjer: but then you run into some problems 07:24:09 whoa! do you know of any languages where poetry/the conveyance of emotions was the explicit purpose? 07:24:10 namely that you need some vocabulary 07:24:14 heh, hardly 07:24:22 lojban is nice 07:24:26 true, it is 07:24:32 at least, I think so 07:24:39 but I never learned it 07:25:40 oranjer: maybe you should look at some very isolating languages like chinese then< 07:25:48 I actually prefer the ontology of Ilaksh and Ithkuil 07:25:55 perhaps, madbrain 07:26:10 i'll isolate your mom 07:26:13 I guess such things would help me in my pursuit of becoming a mesalinguist 07:27:09 and obviously those languages have some more aesthetic stuff such as large phoneme inventories 07:27:22 what "those languages" do you refer to? 07:27:28 Chinese? 07:27:52 [07:25] madbrain: oranjer: maybe you should look at some very isolating languages like chinese then< 07:27:52 [07:27] madbrain: and obviously those languages have some more aesthetic stuff such as large phoneme inventories 07:27:59 well, ithkuil in particular 07:28:04 oh, ha 07:28:08 heh, blows to you, ehird 07:28:09 madbrain: your "and" fucked that up 07:28:11 that's why I asked 07:28:16 it makes it connect with your previous statement 07:28:29 oh, yeah, that too 07:28:34 oh, heh 07:28:53 although chinese hardly has a small inventory either but that's besides point 07:29:20 okay, madbrain, I misunderstood the situation 07:29:28 a vocabulary is necessary, but... 07:30:33 the structure of each symbol, and thus its syntax, would reflect the relational web of the concept it represents so closely it would be intuitive for any human 07:30:45 *more intuitive than so-far natural languages 07:31:27 I've actually found a bunch more criteria a universal language would likely have to fulfill 07:31:31 i postulate such a language is impossible 07:31:32 thx 07:31:52 but then if that relational web is complex, the words would become long, which would make it impractical 07:31:54 yes, ehird, I prefer that to "You're an idiot for even suggesting this" 07:31:54 boy i'm getsin' tired 07:32:00 ah, not "long" 07:32:14 also, what concept do you know has a complex relational web? 07:32:14 Oranjer: who said that 07:32:29 many people I speak of this to, not you, ehird 07:32:31 how about something like "man" 07:32:38 well, you are a cook. 07:32:39 you mean, a human? 07:32:40 erm 07:32:41 kook 07:32:52 yes, I'm a conlang cook, thanks 07:33:03 or do you mean the male of a human? 07:33:22 *male of the human species 07:33:24 heh 07:33:28 look, kook coon cook's nook 07:33:43 is look the only verb there? 07:33:47 let's say the male 07:33:52 okay 07:33:52 yes 07:33:54 hmmm 07:34:14 okay, yeah, that's pretty complex 07:34:15 dammit 07:34:42 see, complex web for a common noun that's very short in english 07:34:46 heh 07:35:08 yes, but I could argue that such a disparity makes the language harder to understand 07:35:59 basically, I want the semantics to match the syntax, and I want the syntax to match the relations of the concept represented 07:36:01 so...hmmm 07:36:09 every concept is infinitely complex. 07:36:14 yes! 07:36:22 I think it's a result comming from the fact that some concepts are very common, hence get very short names, but have very complex meanings and stuff 07:36:26 the Buddhist idea of impermanence 07:36:28 which doesn't bode well for your language 07:36:29 at all 07:36:33 Oranjer: err 07:36:33 yes...hmm... 07:36:37 yeah, ehird? 07:36:39 i don't recall mentioning any buddhist idea 07:36:48 and? does that matter? it relates 07:36:51 and inversely rarer words tend to be longer and have less complex meaning webs 07:36:53 how 07:37:00 quotey coming up 07:37:01 you have to realise that other people cannot see your deductive processes 07:37:06 we have to ask, and you have to tell us 07:37:17 okay 07:37:42 "A name is imposed on what is thought to be a thing or a state and this divides it from other things and other states. But when you pursue what lies behind the name, you find a greater and greater subtlety that has no divisions..." –Visuddhi Magga 07:37:50 also, the wiki link is coming up 07:38:03 well, yeah, that's the point of the name 07:38:05 i don't think that relates to what i said 07:38:09 oh, heh 07:38:16 there is all sorts of complex objects in the world 07:38:24 what i was trying to express is that every idea has infinite relations to other ideas 07:38:36 furthermore, you cannot define an idea in a way meaningful to a human in a way other than these relations 07:38:37 the name serves to take all these objects and put them together 07:38:42 basically, in Buddhism, it is explicit that the existence of every thing depends on the existence of its relations with every other thing 07:38:42 so every word must be infinitely complex 07:38:46 this is... problematic 07:38:50 yes...hmmm 07:38:54 but! 07:39:01 it is an impossible ideal, yes 07:39:02 but! 07:39:07 Butt! 07:39:14 butte 07:39:22 Anus. 07:39:24 we can always approach to the point where it is intuitive /enough/ 07:39:27 hey, Pthing 07:39:28 inappropriate 07:39:30 hello 07:39:44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence I guess 07:39:45 anuses are never inappropriate 07:39:50 NEVER 07:39:56 I think you should strive for a language that is comparatively more intuitive/easier 07:40:00 i have not slept. 07:40:03 that's the point, madbrain 07:40:12 Which is why you should look at chinese 07:40:20 it has a couple of good ideas to lift off 07:40:24 how is that intuitive? it has a massive vocab 07:40:40 yes but it has a more limited set of morphemes 07:40:41 true, but then, everything has "a couple of good ideas to lift off" 07:40:54 like, it has 5000 morphemes 07:41:02 yeah, with plenty of different meanings behind those 07:41:10 true 07:41:41 mind you, I considered whether the pronunciation of a concept's name should work it's way into the graphic text 07:41:49 but with some work you can restrict the number of morphemes down a thousand or two and clean them up a bit 07:41:49 I find that...difficult to implement 07:41:55 hmmm 07:42:11 well, that's what a morpheme is 07:42:25 yeah...but it is usually inexact 07:42:28 the point where the link between pronunciation and meaning becomes arbitrary 07:42:29 I prefer something like 07:42:31 : 07:42:41 http://www.omniglot.com/writing/visiblespeech.htm 07:42:47 if you can break down a morpheme then it's not a morpheme 07:42:55 heh, yeah 07:43:20 but I say there should be a strict 1:1 relation between each morpheme and each phoneme 07:43:23 dunno, I think the latin alphabet is good enough for any auxilliary language 07:43:47 oranjer: well, then you'd need a language with 1000 phonemes 07:43:51 but the structure of each grapheme does not reflect it's syntax! at least a language should do that 07:43:56 harrumph 07:44:02 hmmmm 07:44:07 what you can do is a language where each morpheme is a syllable 07:44:13 that's a lot more reasonable 07:44:25 dammit, you're building this up to Chinese, aren't you? 07:44:36 I know its a syllablaalary...er.. 07:44:41 well, it's true that chinese is a lot like that :D 07:45:15 also, context-free affixes 07:45:17 that's a must 07:45:20 what are those 07:45:35 prefixes and suffixes and infixes and circumfixes 07:45:47 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affix 07:46:08 ah, you mean clean grammar with no irregularity? 07:46:08 you know what context free means, right? 07:46:16 aye 07:46:24 yeah that's not hard 07:46:24 that seems like a reasonable demand 07:46:43 hell, some real languages come close (like.....chinese) 07:46:49 (damn you) 07:46:59 also, explicit evidentialities 07:47:10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality 07:47:37 ah, that's not like chinese 07:47:46 heh 07:47:58 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Ping timeout: 180 seconds). 07:48:02 also, I long ago found a good quote about so-called universal languages 07:48:11 "Leaving hopes and utopias apart, probably the most lucid ever written about language are the following words by Chesterton: "He knows that there are in the soul tints more bewildering, more numberless, and more nameless than the colours of an autumn forest... Yet he seriously believes that these things can every one of them, in all their tones and semitones, in all their blends and unions, be accurately represented by an arbitrary syst 07:48:28 oops, ignore the first " at the beginning 07:49:05 stops at arbitrary syst 07:49:14 what? 07:49:24 arbitrary syst? 07:49:40 " be accurately represented by an arbitrary syst" cut off after that 07:49:46 oh! sorry 07:49:48 irc has a character limit 07:49:53 did my other quote also cut off? 07:50:09 in all their tones and semitones, in all their blends and unions, be accurately represented by an arbitrary system of grunts and squeals. He believes that an ordinary civilized stockbroker can really produce out of his own inside noises which denote all the mysteries of memory and all the agonies of desire" 07:50:41 about visible speech, I don't think you need that, latin alphabet is good enough 07:50:54 for an auxlang at least 07:50:56 I do not think so 07:51:06 it is too unintuitive 07:51:06 Oranjer: you are using pidgin, yes? 07:51:12 I am, yes, ha! 07:51:16 Oranjer: I highly suggest getting a client actually designed for IRC 07:51:21 sorry, I can't 07:51:21 what do you mean too unintuitive 07:51:26 Oranjer: one that can split messages for you just by sending them 07:51:28 Oranjer: why not? 07:51:33 sure, you have to teach the letters to kids 07:51:41 because I also use pidgin for IM 07:51:48 and you have to teach how to put letters together into syllables 07:51:50 Oranjer: and? 07:51:52 you can run two programs 07:51:55 no! 07:52:01 18 is more than enough! 07:52:05 I don't think visible speech helps much with that 07:52:09 IM is different from channels 07:52:19 and every client that tries to do both fails at the latter 07:52:35 wait, madbrain, when you say "visible speech", do you mean text, or graphical language? 07:52:46 I just want to make sure we are not talking past each othere 07:52:54 also, that last "or" is actually an "and" 07:53:02 as in text, and graphical language 07:53:45 http://www.omniglot.com/writing/visiblespeech.htm visible speech 07:53:52 meh, ehird, I now know there is a limit--I can adapt by putting in shift + enter 07:53:55 ohhh! hahahahahaha 07:53:59 I forgot I linked that 07:54:09 I was just using that as an example! ha 07:54:12 Oranjer: yes, but adding too many = bad 07:54:14 because it floods the channel 07:54:16 It looks like another IPA basically 07:54:18 which pisses off everyone 07:54:39 I must now reread your previous comments, madbrain, with that in mind 07:55:19 oranjer: what you're talking about also sounds like a taxonomic language 07:55:24 ah, geez 07:55:35 I apologize--we were talking past each other for some time 07:55:44 ? 07:55:51 yes, I would say that visible language is as good and as bad as latin, sorry 07:56:05 and yes, it is an ontological language, aye 07:56:08 but! 07:56:25 actually, I don't know 07:56:49 all such ontological languages I have seen have used entirely too arbitrary classification systems 07:57:09 akin to Dewey putting "other religions" in the last tenth of "religion" 07:57:27 Dewey Decimal System, I mean 07:57:33 well, one problem of such systems is that it makes related words too close 07:57:52 can you not think of a way past that? 07:58:02 (I think I do, but I gotta find the right words first) 07:58:19 like, say, wolf vs dog vs fox 07:58:56 in a taxonomic system they would have very close forms 07:58:57 and, say, veliolflu, velulflo, and vefulflia 07:58:59 yeah 07:59:01 hmmm 07:59:27 I wonder if Ithkuil has that problem 07:59:32 hmmmm 07:59:42 this is why close morphemes tend to dissimilate rather than to become closer 07:59:48 heh 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:00:45 okay, say each morpheme was a syllable 08:01:07 meh-koh-lee 08:01:13 meh-koh-fee 08:01:15 dammit 08:01:17 hmmm 08:01:36 It would be acceptable to have, say, man-vel vs vel vs no-vel 08:02:09 aye, I was thinking that the most specific part would always get added to the front 08:02:15 something like wild-dog vs dog vs red-dog 08:02:31 but that would likely encourage clipping off the end, the most general 08:02:42 wouldn't it? 08:02:53 well, that could happen 08:03:07 yeah, especially in specialized disciplines 08:03:19 where a namespace (the clipped end) is always assumed 08:03:21 but then with the reverse order they could clip out the start anyways 08:03:35 but is it more likely to do that? 08:03:53 I think you're better with the more specific first 08:04:12 maybe....but actually, I just realized two things 08:04:22 obama is a 5,000 volt telephone pole 08:04:32 might depend on whether your language is head initial or head final though 08:04:37 heh 08:04:46 I mean, I'll be right back 08:04:55 ehird: ? 08:05:02 i simply state facts 08:05:53 dunno what to think about obama yet 08:06:20 he's like bush except more articulate! 08:06:28 also he is a 5,000 volt telephone pole and bush is not 08:06:28 haha no 08:06:59 I don't think he's like bush 08:07:21 convincing. 08:07:32 I have returned to find this almost devolving into...*gasp!* a political tussle! 08:07:54 anyways, back to auxlang stuff 08:08:04 also, I do find similarities between both president's first years in office--but then, every president's first year is like that 08:08:06 yes, anyway 08:08:09 it's obvious to any non-USian that the democratic party is a crazy right-wing party and the republican party is a crazy right-wing party with slightly more delirious religious crap... 08:08:34 uh okay pipe down ehird it's okay they're coming for you but they will help you it's okay ehird 08:08:41 and i say this from the UK, a country only slightly to the left of the US :/ 08:08:44 I realized something, madbrain 08:08:50 okay 08:08:57 Oranjer: what is that meant to imply? you actually think the democratic party is left-wing? 08:09:07 somebody keep this guy away from europe, he might have a seizure 08:09:25 I mean to imply that I wear a beret and I bomb government buildings, now SHUT up 08:09:40 back to languages 08:09:52 oh well, have fun 08:09:55 let me know how that obama thing works out 08:10:05 ehird: who knows 08:10:26 wanna bet? i don't 08:10:33 in an ontological language, concepts closely resembling each other conceptually also closely resemble each other morphologically, right? 08:10:46 (that's the problem you stated before_ 08:10:47 ) 08:10:58 well, in the ones people have tried up to yet, yes 08:11:01 okay 08:11:03 but! 08:12:23 in the characteristica universalis I suggest, one criterion would be that the grapheme, and therefore the morpheme, of a concept would resemble the syntax of the concept represented by that grapheme/morpheme 08:12:29 so... 08:13:01 concepts with closely resembling syntaxs would resemble each other morphologically 08:13:06 I do not see that as a problem 08:13:22 but what about pronunciation? 08:13:38 hmmm...true...doesn't lojban have something to say about that? 08:13:41 that it can 08:13:44 that it can 08:13:47 goddamit 08:13:54 that it can't be misheard? 08:14:08 normally people grasp languages orally and translate that oral stuff into writing, not the other way around 08:14:54 that leads to the problem that what you're expressing might be a tree or a web of relations, but speech is linear 08:14:55 true, but "normally" is hardly "intuitive enough to learn instantly and to have the ability to convey fairly complex concepts unambiguously" 08:15:03 ah, hmmm 08:15:05 true 08:15:28 the graphic part of the language would resemble a web of concepts (it does, actually) 08:15:38 but the speech is linear....hmmm 08:15:42 perhaps... 08:15:55 but then you have a problem 08:16:00 the "pushing" and "popping" from one block to the next 08:16:13 the easiest to master writing system is the one that follows speech the closest 08:16:14 is conveyed orally? 08:16:28 do you know what I mean by "pushing" and "popping"? 08:16:38 you mean like stack-like? 08:16:46 yes! I believe so! 08:16:56 pushing is going in, popping is going out 08:17:05 yeah, then you get something close to SOV languages 08:17:20 or VSO 08:17:25 ah, what? I know what that means, but I fail to see the connection 08:17:43 I guess I can give an example in english? 08:17:51 well, japanese for instance is subject-object-verb 08:18:25 MaryStartingThink TomStartingWants Cake TomEndingWants MaryEndingThink 08:18:27 and all the affixes and suffixes apply in a sort of front to back direction 08:18:52 With the omission of subject and object when it can be inferred. 08:18:59 where "ending wants" or whatever is one thing, not the thing for "ending" and the thing for "wants" 08:19:18 Something like "John Mary made-Cake-[o] likes" 08:19:22 "Mary Thinks Tom wants Cake." 08:19:30 what? 08:19:48 made-Cake-[o] likes? 08:20:08 [o] means that the preceding noun is the object 08:20:10 could you give me the translation of your sentence, please? 08:20:22 John likes the cake mary made 08:20:26 oh, hmmm 08:20:36 John Mary made a cake o' lies. 08:20:42 yeah, okay, I can see that 08:21:06 where the subject and the Verb "surround" the object, and it continues "downward" from there? 08:21:13 okay, that's cool 08:21:17 nope 08:21:21 oh, ha 08:21:23 oops 08:21:27 in practice in japanese the verb is always at the end 08:21:34 okay 08:21:56 but made is not at the end 08:22:00 in your example 08:22:04 and then everything else comes in before, accompanied by a little syllable telling what it does respective to the verb 08:22:17 made is a subordonate clause 08:22:30 not a verb? 08:22:33 huh 08:22:42 ie it's not the focus of the sentence, it's a property of "cake" 08:22:47 ah! 08:22:55 I dunno about that part, though 08:22:59 It's like 08:23:11 John likes the cake [mary made that cake] 08:23:17 hmmm 08:23:38 ah! you are describing the origin of the cake (the object)! 08:23:40 or more precisely 08:23:40 John likes the cake [the one that mary made] 08:23:59 it's basically like an adjective, but instead of just an adjective it's a whole verb 08:24:09 the origin, I guess, would act as a modifier, aye 08:24:16 let's see 08:24:35 basically it helps you guess which cake precisely you're talking of 08:24:42 there's "cause", " relative time of origin", and 'relative location of origin" 08:24:51 cake [reject any cake that was not made by mary] 08:24:59 Mary-made-it would act as the "cause" 08:25:04 asdfghjkl;' 08:25:10 thank you, ehird 08:25:16 oranjer: It's even more general than that 08:25:22 I know, madbrain 08:25:28 I am merely throwing out ideas 08:25:39 1qaz2wsx3edc4rfv5tgb6yhn7ujm8ik,9ol.0p;/-['=]| 08:25:41 it's a determiner, really 08:25:44 a reference 08:25:47 oranjer: it's a small sentence, if that sentence is not satisfied, then you have the wrong cake 08:25:53 :O 08:26:03 hey, when did we bring logic into this? heh 08:26:21 well, you're trying to make an ontological language after all :D 08:26:30 ha 08:27:20 "John Mary-made-yesterday-Cake likes" 08:27:48 Tom John Mary-made-yesterday-Cake likes thinks" 08:27:50 hmmmm 08:27:52 yeah except in japanese the order would be "John Mary yesterday made Cake likes" 08:28:40 ah, progenitor, to temporal, to relation between the progenitor and the object 08:28:40 see, yesterday is one of the arguments of "made", it has to go before it 08:28:45 ah 08:29:07 heh, SVO still feels too natural too me 08:29:27 Then you should look at chinese 08:29:34 may-be 08:29:52 chinese is a totally different ball game and it's SVO down to the nails 08:30:13 oh! I thought you would be recommending a language that was outside my comfort zone 08:30:22 damn you, enabler! 08:30:27 madbrain: Except for the various part of sentence modifiers... 08:30:34 Those make it much easier to understand... 08:30:36 hello, pikhq 08:30:52 are...are people watching this conversation? oy vey 08:30:53 In chinese you'd have "John like mary yesterday make-[de]-Cake" 08:31:08 qazxswedcvrtgbnhyujm,kiol./;p['\] 08:31:10 de? 08:31:14 determiner? 08:31:29 well, [de] is the chinese equivalent of "that" 08:31:34 ah 08:31:38 except it's in reverse order 08:31:47 okay 08:31:55 and it's also applied to adjectives and possesives 08:32:13 Me [de] cake = My cake 08:32:17 regardless of the order, I still would like it if there was some way to indicate the end of each "stack" 08:32:32 Well, that's the problem with SVO 08:32:33 like a closing parenthesis 08:32:38 how so? 08:32:44 SVO doesn't really work like a stack 08:32:47 also, it's a problem with most languages 08:32:58 so SOV would act as a stack? I see that...hmmm 08:33:37 so, madbrain, you know Chinese? 08:33:44 well, I learned some 08:33:49 coolsome 08:34:28 as for evidentiality, you could probably do that with auxilliary verbs 08:35:17 or at least that's how english tends to work afaik 08:35:19 I thought an affix to the verb, like in...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language 08:35:49 also, I like examining that language for its sheer differentness 08:36:46 pirahan is kinda weird yeah 08:37:38 I just really like the idea of an evidentiality mandatory for each verb 08:38:01 or...inheritable evidentiality? or, I dunno 08:38:11 well, you could have a default level, and add on affixes to change that 08:38:18 yeah 08:38:26 or use auxilliary verbs 08:39:01 like "Bob crazy" vs "I think Bob crazy" vs "I sure Bob crazy" 08:39:05 perhaps...but that hardly seems mandatory, ya know? besides, the only difference between the two is the presence or absence of a space between them 08:39:38 depends, an affix is not a word, a verb is one 08:39:42 Bob acts crazy, I-know-because-I-observed Bob acts crazy 08:40:04 ah, but a "word" is just an affix with a space separating it from another 08:40:05 so the verb could be separated by some extra words but not the affix 08:40:19 ohhh 08:40:20 hmmm 08:40:27 oranjer: but there are no spaces when speaking 08:40:44 oranjer: yet some languages still clearly delimit words phonetically 08:41:06 exactly...? 08:41:19 well, there is usually a hiccup or two 08:41:37 but in turkish, you have vowel harmony 08:41:48 and in french you have the sliding thing 08:41:59 actually french is a bad example 08:42:02 heh 08:42:46 because it tends to jumble up together multiple words and it has tons of clitics, ie words that are somewhat between words and affixes 08:42:54 aye... 08:43:37 nity 08:43:41 also french is really hard to separate into morphemes 08:43:58 regardless, we're arguing over whether to use affixes or auxiliary verbs to convey evidentiality, which is an altogether ridiculous argument 08:44:27 I am more concerned over evidentialities-about-evidentialities 08:44:53 like what 08:45:23 He-(I-think-he)-thinks She ate the last piece 08:45:38 as in, I think that he thinks that she ate the last piece 08:45:55 I don't think "I think that..." would work 08:46:00 hmmm 08:46:08 what say you? 08:46:21 evidentiality in English? 08:46:23 dunno, it works in english 08:46:29 heh 08:46:43 and I think you'd have more or less the same way of expressing it in french or chinese 08:46:48 not really, puzzlet, we're trying to construct a universal language 08:46:57 I mean, madbrain 08:47:31 that would "I think he thinks" add to the top of the stack, or would it just add to the verb within "He thinks"? 08:47:37 whoa 08:47:39 haha! 08:47:54 what a stupidly obvious conundrum-solution! 08:48:03 i think he thinks that he thinks that he thinks 08:48:06 what he thinks he thinks 08:48:18 /we add the evidentialities to the top of the stack!/ 08:48:29 oh, wait, dammit 08:48:31 well, depends 08:48:41 that would work for the verbs, I guess 08:49:10 but what of the object's characteristics? how sure am I that Mary made a cake? or would that modify the verb as well? 08:49:14 evidentiality with "I" is ok, but when you're getting into evidentiality for other people, it would be probably simpler to use a verb for "think" 08:49:26 hmmm 08:49:34 example please! 08:49:50 Ok, what about Bob thinks 08:49:59 where are you going to put Bob 08:50:02 i guess i should sleep 08:50:19 okay, ehird 08:50:25 OR 08:50:26 SHOULD 08:50:26 I 08:50:44 pics or it never occured 08:51:02 madbrain, were those examples? 08:51:22 ok, say "Bob thinks paul gave an apple to anna" 08:51:28 okay 08:51:44 Oranjer: did you make "pics or it never occurred" like that deliberately 08:51:48 or is that actually how you'd phrase it 08:51:55 I did 08:52:08 Schrodinger's Picture Album 08:52:36 Well, in that sentence you have 1 action action (give), 4 nouns 08:52:54 -!- oerjan has joined. 08:53:09 and the idea that one of them is having a point of view on that action 08:53:22 Bob Start-think Paul start-give-to-anna apple End-give End-think. 08:53:30 how do you express that 08:53:40 that's your example 08:53:49 Bob thinks Paul gave an apple to anna 08:54:16 maybe...maybe /only/ evidentialities should go to the top of the stack! 08:54:29 hmmm 08:54:46 hello, oerjan 08:54:55 you are missing an r, oerjan 08:55:06 bob paul anna apple give think 08:55:44 (while making explicit the difference between the direct and indirect object of give, of course) 08:55:51 I have heard of that individual, as I have also heard of you, ehird 08:55:53 spooky 08:55:56 yes 08:55:59 hehe 08:56:00 like a villain 08:56:12 "Now... this will be very swift." 08:56:36 oranjer: actually you don't HAVE to make a difference between the direct and indirect object 08:56:42 what? go awesome or go home, I say--that also applies to the minuscule of speech 08:56:46 although most languages do it 08:56:51 oh? how's you say that? 08:56:52 hmmm 08:56:54 still 08:57:05 I think the language should 08:57:18 I car box put 08:57:36 did I put the car in a box or the box in the car? also, I guess I forgot the "in" 08:57:44 I car in-box put? 08:57:46 hmmm 08:57:47 well, as in you have to differentiate it at least by the order 08:58:03 bah! differentiating by order is hardly intuitive! 08:58:14 I would prefer to use affixes 08:58:34 chinese would be "I at-box's inside put car" 08:58:36 oerjan! should i sleep 08:58:39 you are the voice fo reason 08:58:41 *of 08:58:45 (say yes, oerjan) 08:58:57 ehird: yes. otherwise you'll eventually go insane. 08:58:57 no, oerjan is the voice fo' reason 08:59:07 oerjan: go? 08:59:16 (damn, ehird! you forgot to place a timelimit in your question!) 08:59:39 i don't really know go, never played it. read a little bit about it though. 08:59:39 Oranjer: what 09:00:02 oerjan: oh fuck you i'm tired i don't have the brain space for the, the jokes and the... so why the fuck am i asking you 09:00:05 yeah, good question ehird! 09:00:13 ehird: SLEEP 09:00:16 (you should have asked something like "should I go to sleep soon, within the next hour?) 09:00:20 oerjan: why! 09:00:24 SLEEP 09:00:39 Oranjer: GO STICK YOUR HEAD IN AN EXHAUST PIPE 09:00:40 or something 09:00:41 anyway 09:00:42 ehird: because group pressure 09:00:55 Oerjan-for-unknown-reasons demands ehird to sleep 09:00:56 oerjan: but I haven't done a gateway drug yet! 09:01:05 i'm not ready to give into such hardcore peer pressure as sleeping, man 09:01:06 something like "wo3 dao4 he2zi-li na2zou3 che1" 09:01:11 umm 09:01:17 why the numbers? 09:01:22 tones 09:01:26 oh! 09:01:33 1t'5 1014lly 1337 09:01:36 rthyjukl;' 09:01:55 haha, that's the problem when the ratio of phoneme to grapheme is not 1:1 09:02:07 oerjan: why sleep 09:02:14 me oh fucking hell it's that time 09:02:18 um 09:02:23 i probably should sleep! shouldn't i 09:02:25 dao4 is not pronounced the same way as dao3 (and has a different meaning ofc) 09:02:43 you're relegated to using suprasegmental notes to indicate the correct phoneme, and therefore to indicate the correct concept 09:02:44 oranjer: which is why I add tone numbers 09:03:01 just like I use consonants and vowels 09:03:10 I know, but in writing chinese, the tones are not implicit in the grapheme used, right? 09:03:24 suprasegmental 09:03:25 best word ever 09:03:27 apart from sleep 09:03:28 well, they are 09:03:30 sleep is a good word 09:03:38 one grapheme can represent a multitude of phonemes, right? 09:03:53 I also like "suprasegmental", ehird 09:03:58 ehird: don't think too much. follow your heart. then sleep. 09:03:58 one grapheme usually represents 1 morpheme and 1 syllable 09:04:06 oerjan: aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmsdfghjkl; 09:04:14 really? I heard differently, madbrain...hmmmm 09:04:23 what if sleeping is like...dying...and reincarnation...man...duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude 09:04:25 ahem 09:04:27 yeah, I should sleep1 09:04:29 ie there are about 5000 morphemes in mandarin, but about 1200 different syllables 09:04:35 more importantly i should stop doing 1 when want ! 09:04:41 yeah that sounds bad madbrain 09:04:43 and stuff yeah okay sorta thing 09:04:52 so actually there are lots of homophones 09:05:03 ie graphemes have more info than phonemes 09:05:32 more info? impossibleh! 09:05:39 republiphone party 09:05:45 they'rea ll homophones and shit 09:05:47 this is because the number of different syllables has gone down in mandarin, ie some syllables merged 09:05:47 telecrat party 09:05:48 okay i really, really need sleep 09:05:52 i'm practically incoherent 09:05:55 oh 09:06:11 so, what about the graphemes, madbrain? 09:06:18 THOSE GRAHPHEMES HUH 09:06:20 ehird: *practically* ? 09:06:22 what's UP with them 09:06:25 uh-huh 09:06:33 oerjan: well it's like a theory of incoherency you understand 09:06:34 characters are about equivalent to morphemes in chinese 09:06:35 yeah, grapheme food, what's up with that? 09:06:37 appleid in practice 09:06:40 oh, okay 09:06:42 ie 1 syllable with 1 meaning 09:06:45 so,.. it's practically! 09:06:52 Oranjer: yeah, what is UP with it 09:07:08 i 09:07:10 haha, I just finally got the joke! holy shit I'm an idiot 09:07:10 don't actually know 09:07:14 Up 09:07:15 what is up with it 09:07:15 UP 09:07:19 uP 09:07:21 oh god 09:07:21 it's not a too practical system because 5000 morhpemes = 5000 characters to learn :( 09:07:23 i never even... 09:07:26 i never even got that 09:07:30 awesome, man 09:07:32 i thought it was just.. .shit 09:07:34 is that actually 09:07:36 the joke? 09:07:46 is that the punchline, intentional, i mean, is that the thing, that people do it for 09:07:47 "Airplane food...what is UP with that?" 09:07:48 shit 09:07:51 yeah 09:07:53 yeah i know 09:07:54 shit 09:07:56 is that the actual- 09:07:56 I don't know! I don't know! 09:08:00 wow 09:08:00 i need to sleep 09:08:00 is that it? 09:08:02 this, has shaken my world 09:08:03 holy-- 09:08:05 I DON'T KNOW 09:08:07 it has! 09:08:08 jesus christ 09:08:09 ah 09:08:11 ahhh ahhhhh 09:08:17 I AM FREAKING OUT 09:08:23 .. 09:08:30 THIS IS IMPORTANT 09:08:30 madbrain, do you know? 09:08:37 about what 09:08:40 YOU HAVE A BRAIN MADBRAIN USE IT 09:08:42 "what is UP with airline food" 09:08:43 is it 09:08:44 is it 09:08:45 up 09:08:46 as in 09:08:47 the sky 09:08:48 blue 09:08:49 airplanes 09:08:53 is that, the joke 09:08:53 ... 09:08:55 is that the punny punchline? 09:08:57 ok 09:08:59 the PUNchline? 09:09:01 that is what we would like to know 09:09:12 I would like to know 09:09:15 we are waiting on you madbrain 09:09:17 does...does google know? 09:09:19 TELL US 09:09:23 should I ask google? 09:09:25 ehird: yeah I got it 09:09:29 I DON'T KNOW how could we even ask it 09:09:41 GOOGLE WHAT IS UP WITH THE AIRPLANE FOOD JOKE 09:09:42 -!- jix has joined. 09:09:48 i, the googles aren't helping 09:09:49 oh god 09:09:53 oh god! I think I made another one! oh, shits! 09:09:56 -!- jix has quit (Client Quit). 09:09:58 wait, wait, wait, CALM DOWN i think 09:10:05 Oranjer: the joke that is commonly done is 09:10:09 " what is the deal with airline food? " 09:10:11 madbrain, what is up with the airplane joke? 09:10:14 oh 09:10:17 now unless it refers to a wonderful airline's GREAT DEALS 09:10:19 as in VALUE FOR MONEY 09:10:21 we are save 09:10:22 safe 09:10:23 phew 09:10:24 nothing missed 09:10:24 well, damn, that's nothing to phone home about 09:10:25 calm down 09:10:25 ryanair 09:10:27 yay 09:10:30 madbrain: ABSOLUTELY 09:10:34 at this point i am starting to think you should _all_ sleep 09:10:39 yes 09:10:39 they should do an ad campaign! 09:10:42 I am glad for America adn Humanity adn Us adn Them 09:10:45 "What's the DEAL with airline food?" 09:10:50 "The DEAL... is with Ryanair!" 09:10:55 errr 09:11:00 ok stop 09:11:00 "Our new Premium flights now include FOOD!" 09:11:00 it needs work 09:11:05 food! that you can put in your mouth! 09:11:08 and DIGEST 09:11:14 ahh madbrain I have forgotten our subject! 09:11:14 please 09:11:29 HELLO WORLd 09:11:32 WORLD 09:11:51 ehird: if your stomach is tough enough 09:11:57 FOOD 09:12:02 YOU DIGEST IT WITH YOUR... I DON'T KNOW, INTESTINES 09:12:06 no! no food for a strong stomach, you! 09:12:10 intestines are very clever they do all sorts of things 09:12:16 yes! 09:12:17 oranjer: so yeah I think you should have latin alphabet 09:12:32 wait, does, multi-functionality necessarily indicated cleverness? 09:12:35 intestines are turing-complete! too bad they can only do shit. 09:12:39 a latin alphabet? 09:12:42 Oranjer: you use such big words 09:12:45 i am no longer "with you" 09:13:05 latin alphabet (abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz) can notate, like, any language 09:13:12 why's that? the structure of each grapheme does not indicate the syntax of the concept they relate! 09:13:17 so can binary alphabet (01) 09:13:18 yeah what's up with all this cleverity 09:13:21 IT'S MAGIC 09:13:22 yes, ehird! 09:13:32 resolution is no insurmoutable barrier! 09:13:33 MA-HA-HA-HA-hahahaha-gic! 09:13:36 well, any spoken language 09:13:43 yep i am talk via 1x1 1-bit display 09:13:47 is very high quality single pixel 09:13:48 NO! 09:13:51 not binary 09:13:54 we need a new base 09:13:56 :'( 09:13:58 7.4 09:14:00 like, a negative imaginary number 09:14:05 IT WORKS 09:14:08 all your b *hit by falling anvil* 09:14:17 ha, oerjan 09:14:23 oranjer, oerjan 09:14:23 because any spoken language eventually breaks down to N vowels an M consonants (and O lengths/tones/accents/etc..) 09:14:35 does it, madbrain? 09:14:59 BYE SLEEP TIME!!! 09:15:01 -!- ehird has quit. 09:15:02 what if a triple syllable was an individual morpheme? 09:15:22 also, yeah, I do understand the limitations of the human vocal system 09:15:24 you mean like "banana" for instance? 09:15:31 sure! ha 09:15:33 and! and! 09:15:45 the alphabet! would be so different! 09:15:46 ok, well, speech does not delimit that morpheme 09:16:04 like, banana would be right next to gahnosee! 09:16:16 if speech doesn't delimit it, why would you have to delimit it in writing 09:16:22 so so you don't confuse closely categorized concepts! 09:16:51 ah, but each of those triple-syllable morphemes would have its own grapheme! 09:16:57 oh, wait 09:17:02 dammit, that doesn't work at all! 09:17:09 ........... 09:17:12 sorry 09:17:23 ehird's...insanity infected me for a bit 09:17:33 it does that. 09:17:59 I just wanna talk about my game...:( 09:18:16 well, if you made a language where each morpheme is 1 syllable, then you can guess where each morpheme start and ends even with latin alphabet 09:18:19 oh wait, we were discussing a characteristica universalis! 09:18:31 oh, true 09:18:31 huh 09:18:35 hmmm 09:19:26 LR(0) human languages! 09:19:33 ? 09:19:36 perhaps the vowels used in each morpheme would be the same? so a fragment of ...boonoosee... could not be confused for ...booneesee... 09:19:53 as the first is 1, (1,1,2,) 2,2 09:20:02 oranjer: but then you'd have a different problem 09:20:07 and the second is 1,1 (1,2,2) 2 09:20:11 oh? what's that? 09:20:37 which is that it's hard to make 1000+ different syllables without at least a consonant, a vowel, and something else (such as another consnonant) 09:20:50 oh 09:21:16 some languages do keep each vowel more or less intact though so boonoosee vs booneesee would remain different 09:21:16 boonookoo, beeneekee, bahnahkah... 09:21:28 like chinese for instance 09:21:53 okay, do you want chinese to be the universal language? you can say it if you want, I will not get angry 09:22:08 well in mandarin iirc ng can only occur at the end and most everything else at the beginning (ignoring n), so if you divided the consonant set in two... 09:22:36 uh 09:22:44 like, if you do mergers like bunuxi with bunixi in chinese, you generate a gazillion homophones 09:22:55 okay 09:23:21 oerjan: yeah but there is no vowel harmony 09:23:35 you want vowel harmony too now? 09:23:42 no 09:24:14 well, oranjer was suggesting something like vowel harmony and I said that it would lower the phonological content too much 09:24:20 basically 09:25:23 I give up on the multi-syllable morpheme idea. I apologize for any inconveniences or troubles my extended confusion has caused our audience, and our respective selves. 09:25:28 oranjer: well, I think the grammar and morphology of chinese might be a good inspiration yes 09:25:42 yes, perhaps 09:25:45 although not the writing system or phonetic system :D 09:25:48 but not the grapheme! 09:25:51 heh, yeah 09:26:12 oh, but you can have multiple syllable morphemes too 09:26:18 I know 09:26:32 but not in an ontological language 09:26:41 well 09:26:47 you'd have to be able to delimit them 09:27:02 a separate sound? 09:27:08 ie no "hi-no" vs "hino" ambiguity 09:27:16 uh 09:27:23 what does that mean? 09:27:47 do you mean that hi and no, vs hino, are all separate morphemes? 09:28:03 well, you can't have a "hi", a "no" and a "hino" morpheme without running the risk of causing a homophone 09:28:27 although in practice that risk is quite low which is why most languages do have multiple syllable morphemes 09:28:43 oh 09:28:48 ha, you're right, they do 09:28:54 oy vey 09:29:33 see, to make a good ontological language, you have to learn more about natural languages 09:29:40 bah! yeah 09:29:43 but 09:30:00 can we put our universal language ruminations to rest? 09:30:10 as in, so we can sleep on it 09:30:18 heh sleep is good 09:30:24 that *is* the most integral part of creativity 09:30:32 night 09:30:33 -!- madbrain has quit ("Radiateur"). 09:30:37 :O 09:30:58 uh...okay 09:31:01 anyone here? 09:31:05 boo! 09:31:09 AHHHH 09:31:20 why are our names so alike? 09:31:23 *MWAHAHAHA* 09:31:24 where did you get yours? 09:31:45 well in my case it _is_ my name, slightly mangled to fit in the english alphabet 09:31:55 oh! awesomebeans 09:32:11 oh dear 09:32:17 are you kids talking about natural languages? 09:32:24 we were, before 09:32:30 *MWAHAHAHA* 09:32:38 YOU ARE TOO LATE 09:32:38 actually, we were talking about constructing an artificial language 09:32:58 ok 09:33:01 to what end 09:33:02 my name is but a portmanteau of my favorite color and the first syllable of my actual name 09:33:10 for universal communication 09:33:12 numb nuts 09:33:16 heh 09:33:16 in what sense 09:33:20 augur: to take over the world, of course. what other end is there? 09:33:28 good point oerjan! 09:33:36 well, yes, oerjan, but that's not the sole purpose 09:33:45 what do you mean by universal communication 09:34:19 I basically wish to create a language that can model, create, and compare even the most disparate of the human disciplines 09:34:36 and no, your "mathematics" ain't universal enough 09:34:51 natural language does this pretty well enough as it is. 09:35:02 and by natural language i mean any given language. 09:35:24 bah! it's hardly efficient 09:35:34 actually its quite efficient 09:35:42 and it's hardly intuitive enough to be understand within the hour by any sentient creature 09:36:02 no language can be learned within an hour. 09:36:05 not by humans. 09:36:05 also, the semantics hardly match the syntax! 09:36:09 Oranjer: let me warn you that augur is studying linguistics 09:36:12 a universal language should be 09:36:15 oooohhh 09:36:18 yes, this is true oranjer 09:36:22 i am infact a professional linguist 09:36:25 then....augur is a lost cause, then :( 09:36:27 heh 09:36:37 at one of, if not the top theoretical departments on the planet. 09:36:42 :O 09:36:44 ruined by the establishment :D 09:36:51 pfft 09:36:57 yeah! *pbbbbt!* 09:37:03 this department makes it routine to challenge conventional ideas 09:37:20 (I think that is the way to represent eh raspberry) 09:37:20 anyway 09:37:28 natural language is not inefficient 09:37:32 it is incredibly efficient 09:37:37 oh???? 09:37:46 furthermore, the syntax does not need to look precisely like the semantics 09:37:51 for if it did it would become less efficient 09:38:01 no, I meant the other way around! 09:38:02 but it does reflect the semantics to a large degree 09:38:20 wait, what's your definition of semantics and syntax? the *official* definitions? 09:38:42 syntax is all the formal structural aspects of linguistic expressions 09:39:06 broadly construed to include morphology but not so broad as to include the phonological aspects 09:39:07 uh hmmm 09:39:26 oops! I guess I have been using the word the wrong way all along! oops! 09:39:28 semantics is in my usage an internalist formal system of conceptualization. 09:39:37 what did you mean by syntax 09:40:30 regarding language efficiency 09:40:33 I meant, by syntax, the underlying relations between the concepts represented by the semantics, the words themselves 09:40:39 oops! 09:40:56 given the conditions in which it must be used, the things you find inefficient, like redundancy, etc. are actually added for reliability 09:41:17 so that signal degradation != meaning degradation 09:41:19 no, I never said redundancy was inefficient! 09:41:29 I understand it's necessity 09:41:34 well there is little else that could be said to be inefficient about language 09:41:48 oh? 09:42:02 I mean that...dammit 09:42:12 well consider the situation wherein you reflect a semantics precisely 09:42:12 ah-ha! 09:42:17 what? 09:42:31 and lets say, for the sake of convenience, that we have a tarskian logic rather than anything as complicated as a lambda calculus 09:42:40 okay 09:43:57 the sentence "the dog bit the man that the woman knows" would become something roughly like BIT(x,y) & DOG(x) & MAN(y) & KNOW(z,y) & WOMAN(z) 09:44:16 ah, okay 09:44:19 or maybe just Bxy & Dx & My & Kzy & Wz 09:44:27 uh-huh 09:44:30 now, there's a lot of redundancy of variables here 09:44:41 all those x's and y's and x'z duplicated like that 09:44:55 natural language tends to not do this 09:45:09 notice in the english, theres only one unit that refers to the woman, one that refers to the man, one to the dog 09:45:13 not two or three 09:45:16 true..but each time they are mentioned, they are describing a separate relation about that concept 09:45:18 huhhhh 09:45:19 * oerjan is disturbed that his eyes seem to confuse Oranjer's nick with Gregor 09:45:21 hmm 09:45:32 true, they're in different relations 09:45:33 BUT 09:45:41 because of the HIERARCHICAL relationships 09:45:44 namely 09:46:04 [the_dog [bit [the_man [that the_woman [knows]]]]] 09:46:11 we can define certain conventions 09:46:19 wherein, for instance 09:46:19 augur, you have convinced me that such redundancies to indicate popping and pushing would be strictly necessary in a universal language 09:46:26 yay! 09:47:00 we might take a syntactic form [the_dog [bit [the_man [that the_woman [knows the_man]]]]] and delete this lower copy of the man just in case it refers to the same man as the higher version 09:47:05 we were talking about such stacking earlier 09:47:17 ah, okay 09:47:37 things could get much more complicated very quickly 09:47:50 of course, it's stacking 09:47:53 especially since the normal semantic representations of sentences are tremendously complicated 09:48:01 i dont know what you mean by "stacking" 09:48:22 I mean what you mean when you speak of nested hierarchies 09:48:43 wherein the object of a relation is itself a relation, etc. 09:48:49 well thats just tree structured linguistic expressions 09:48:57 :O 09:49:17 in most versions of semantics that have any worth to them, relations arent the arguments of other relations 09:49:24 the value of the relation can be 09:49:28 but the relation itself is not 09:49:40 why not? 09:49:49 I see no problem with such a thing 09:49:55 "I think that..." 09:49:59 because in a properly typed logic, relations are not objects of the system 09:50:04 oh sure, it happens in natural language 09:50:20 which is why SOME very important logics have such abilities 09:50:37 such as montague's intensional logic 09:51:07 tho its arguable that such systems are completely unnecessary 09:52:00 uh-huh 09:52:31 well, hey, I hate do this, really, I know it looks suspicious and all, but I was just about to go to sleep when you came on 09:52:37 so now, I must go 09:53:07 ok 09:53:15 see ya later, augur, oerjan, everyone else! 09:53:25 good bye my ignorant friend 09:53:27 and thanks, augur 09:53:28 heh 09:53:32 -!- Oranjer has left (?). 09:53:33 so oerjan! 09:53:59 eek 09:54:01 hows it goin 09:54:37 nothing much 09:54:47 wanna know some cool stuff about language? :x 09:54:52 noooo 09:54:59 but its interesting! 09:55:11 its like learning about how natural language is esoteric! 09:55:24 and thus provides ideas about making even more esoteric constructed languages! 09:55:30 so check it out 09:56:04 suppose your semantics had the types T, U, V, ... 09:56:14 and some relations over these times 09:56:34 lets say R is T -> U -> V 09:56:48 or perhaps more accurately, T -> U -> Bool 09:57:18 (all relations looking like that; two args go to bool) 09:58:10 your syntax apparently cannot have phrases that directly include other phrases, IF... 09:58:50 if the arguments/referents of those phrases are of types T, U such that there is no relationship of type T -> U -> Bool or U -> T -> Bool 09:59:48 this also seems to lead inexorably to the emergence of certain hierarchies in the syntax that seemingly have no motivation 10:00:56 tis interesting! 10:02:39 theres no apriori reason why this should be true 10:02:43 but it seems to be 10:03:22 also, even if the type system has a relation of the requisite sort, the semantics must contain such a relation connecting the relevant items 10:03:32 precisely one relation 10:03:57 so its highly constrained 10:04:08 and you could imagine that there are ways to change those constraints 10:04:17 but the result is not a naturally acquirable human language 10:04:34 hm 10:06:16 you could also imagine the same constraints but with a different semantics 10:06:42 so that you get different relations and thus different possible grammars 10:07:41 so for instance normally things like tense and modality are structurally higher than things like core verbal meaning components 10:08:03 but why? perhaps you might have a languge in which tense and modality are lower in the structure 10:08:22 and so you might get very weird things out of that 10:11:49 anyway, later 10:11:54 bye :| 10:12:10 -!- oerjan has quit ("see ya"). 11:01:30 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 11:10:21 -!- nooga has joined. 11:13:25 anyone played with llvm-as? 11:19:05 "Played with"? I've used it 11:31:14 Deewiant: But have you PLAYED with it? Have you given it enough LOVE? Have you treated it as a PERSON? 11:31:26 No, I can't say that I have. 11:31:33 No! You just USE it, like it's a piece of code with no FEELINGS! 11:31:44 Pretty much, yep. 11:31:53 I guess that's fair. 11:31:58 :-P 12:15:49 -!- Asztal has joined. 12:45:52 uhm 12:46:15 another reason for i hate C++: there is no way to specify unescaped string literals 12:47:17 and thus my regexp engine needs something like that: regex_compile("blah\\."); instead of "blah\." 12:47:34 Strictly that hate is at the C preprocessor, but yeah. 12:48:08 in ruby i've got "" vs '' and it's okay 12:48:30 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote closed the connection). 12:50:29 on the other hand i must admit that C++'s exceptions are useful 12:51:51 pumping errors up by hand from a bunch of parser functions that call themselves sucks 13:20:52 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 13:36:05 -!- ais523 has joined. 13:47:51 -!- FireFly has joined. 13:48:54 -!- nooga has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 13:57:07 -!- ais523_ has joined. 13:58:14 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 14:01:42 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais532. 14:01:43 -!- ais532 has changed nick to ais523. 15:30:02 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 15:49:51 -!- coppro has quit ("I am leaving. You are about to explode."). 16:07:03 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 16:11:28 -!- ais523 has joined. 16:17:46 -!- oerjan has joined. 16:19:04 another reason for i hate C++: there is no way to specify unescaped string literals <-- on the bright side, that is also a missing feature of haskell 16:31:00 now where is that rascal AnMaster 16:31:15 oerjan, iwc 16:31:19 dammit! 16:31:31 you have not spoken in over 1 day 16:31:41 and? 16:31:50 so i assumed you were not here 16:32:08 also: fiendish, obi-wan :D 16:33:28 oh and for iwc with the recent mythbusters arc, this leaves me confused which universe the joneses actually _are_ in... 16:59:22 -!- kar8nga has joined. 17:52:55 unescaped = init . tail . show 17:53:46 main = putStrLn $ unescaped "A newline is \n; a bell is \a." 17:59:42 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 18:04:03 !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "A newline is \n; a bell is \a." 18:04:31 A newline is \n; a bell is \a. 18:05:26 I foresee no problem with that method. 18:10:56 -!- fax has joined. 18:13:09 -!- augur has joined. 18:26:46 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 18:45:13 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daudiobooks&field-keywords=kant .. I didn't know they had CDs back then 18:46:06 it's categorically a disk 18:47:57 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection). 18:51:41 I do foresee a problem with that method. 18:52:07 !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "A newline is \10; a bell is \7." 18:52:09 A newline is \n; a bell is \a. 18:53:11 !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "\Let\'s \jus\t p\ut \bac\ksl\ash\es \in \ran\dom\ pl\ace\s." 18:53:33 !haskell EgoBot, does your silence mean that my string has a lexical error? 18:53:44 You do not easily recognize sarcasm memes, i take 18:54:03 Is that a meme? 18:54:29 well at least i think i saw it in dilbert 18:54:45 I see. 18:56:08 indeed lexical errors should be possible 18:56:46 !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "\ \etc. \ \etc." 18:56:48 etc. etc. 18:57:11 (no that was not an attempt at a lexical error) 18:59:44 why SHOULD they teach logic in school? 19:00:44 -!- kar8nga has joined. 19:01:28 Logic is fundamental to understanding math, science, and debate. 19:01:54 Oh, and philosophy. 19:01:55 is it though? 19:02:43 fax, how much math do you know? 19:02:53 all of it ! 19:03:05 I don't know how to answer that really 19:03:06 Care to demonstrate? 19:03:43 A claim that logic is not fundamental to understanding math can, insofar as I can tell, only be born out by ignorance regarding what math actually *is*. 19:03:55 uh ok 19:04:20 lets not talk about it then 19:04:39 fax: if you did know how to answer that, how would you answer it? 19:04:50 as for debate, it is important to know enough logic to detect when others are _not_ arguing sensibly 19:04:58 Warrigal how could I possibly answer your question? :P 19:05:14 Debate is almost entirely composed of logic. Informal logic, mind, but still. 19:05:44 (well, logic and logical fallacies)O 19:05:49 kinda lose the will to discuss something when people start telling me it's ignorance 19:06:22 fax: well math at higher levels is based on proof, and proof is logic 19:06:49 fax: if you knew the answer to your rhetorical question, what would it be? 19:07:01 If these questions weren't positively silly, how would you answer them? 19:07:05 Warrigal stop paradoxing me!!! 19:07:16 If it weren't a paradox... oh, never mind. 19:07:59 oerjan: "At higher levels"? I'd almost hesitate to call it math before you start discussing proofs and logic. 19:08:27 and science is much about testing hypothesis - and to test hypotheses you need to be able to reason about their consequences, thus logic 19:09:01 Eliezer Yudkowsky would say that rationality should be taught in school! 19:09:25 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Remote closed the connection). 19:09:33 pikhq: well yeah but it is a bit insulting to people who can do numbers well but never get that far... 19:10:26 oerjan: But computation != math... 19:10:59 and programming requires logic too - to find bugs you have to reason about what the program should do and what it actually does... 19:18:02 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 19:23:54 -!- adam_d has joined. 19:46:13 -!- Oranjer has joined. 20:08:24 http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs51/f/2009/265/c/0/Sauna_Time_by_humon.jpg 20:09:01 ha, what? is the lesson Finland's an asshole? 20:09:17 or do Finnish sauna's really do that? 20:09:37 Yes, all of that is normal. :-) 20:09:42 ah, okay 20:11:44 speaking of personifications of abstract, non-human concepts 20:12:36 I intend to draw several such things 20:13:06 and someone I know wishes to write a story about such embodiments of facets of reality 20:13:35 and someone else I know wishes to make a game revolving around such anthropomorphisms 20:13:44 :O 20:14:30 -!- BeholdMyGlory_ has joined. 20:14:50 anyways 20:14:56 anyone got a concept for me to draw? 20:15:25 Oranjer when you learn about a new thing then it appears everywhere 20:15:45 or at least, it /appears/ to appear everywhere, yes 20:16:08 -!- jix has joined. 20:16:15 a common result of a human having a limited amount of memory, and of having what is called a "recency bias" 20:16:34 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Nick collision from services.). 20:16:37 -!- BeholdMyGlory_ has changed nick to BeholdMyGlory. 20:16:54 where, obviously enough, humans remember the last thing that happened more than those that came before 20:16:57 anyways 20:17:19 do you wish me to draw the concept of "when you learn about a new thing then it appears everywhere"? 20:17:37 yes 20:17:49 hmmm okay 20:17:52 huh 20:18:00 This has stumped me 20:18:05 have you seen GregorRs programming languages? 20:18:14 personifications 20:18:23 what, no! 20:18:29 what are you talking about? 20:18:34 linkies please? 20:18:42 well there isn't a link 20:19:38 http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/ORK maybe? 20:20:07 I don't think it's really considered polite to whack *others* with a vihta/vasta/is-there-an-English-name-for-it; certainly applying it to yourself is a very common sauna behaviour though. 20:20:26 heh 20:20:36 that's why I asked if Finland is an asshole 20:21:13 hey, fax 20:21:19 the file didn't take, I think 20:21:22 could you send it again? 20:21:37 thanks 20:22:55 huh 20:23:02 :( 20:23:07 it seems to keep breaking down right when it starts, sorry 20:23:40 so uh what's up with this connection you say between these esoteric languages and personifications? 20:26:36 fax? 20:28:25 I am waiting for transfer to begin 20:28:36 ..aaaand it disappeared 20:30:20 I have discovered the problem 20:30:31 it cancels the file transfer 20:30:44 can you just email it to me? 20:36:30 haha, exactly! 20:36:41 personifications of programming languages! yes! 20:36:44 oerjan == Oranjer? 20:36:52 NO, AnMaster 20:36:55 :O 20:36:55 hm 20:36:59 who then 20:37:03 I have one more "r" 20:37:04 someone new here? 20:37:07 yep! 20:37:16 your nick is too confusing 20:37:18 :P 20:37:52 sorry 20:38:29 I love it so much lol 20:39:11 love what? 21:05:05 Oranjer didn't you get it? 21:05:10 I did 21:05:15 I said I did, did I not? 21:05:27 I mentioned that that was exactly what I was talking about 21:05:49 personifications, embodiments, avatars, anthropomorphisms, etc. of abstract concepts 21:14:44 -!- ais523 has joined. 21:24:47 hi ais523 21:24:57 hi 21:25:03 hello ais523!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21:25:18 :O 21:25:22 :( ) 21:25:34 ais523, to avoid confusion (or not) oerjan != Oranjer 21:25:41 just confusingly similar 21:25:43 AnMaster: I know 21:25:46 :O 21:25:48 mhm 21:25:50 yay! 21:25:51 and I met Oranjer outside #esoteric first 21:25:55 yeah! 21:26:01 how come every nomicer seems to end up here? 21:26:08 also apparently Gregor != Oranjer 21:26:14 I was recommended here 21:26:20 I am not this Gregor 21:26:25 Because nomics are quite awesome? 21:26:31 ha 21:26:33 As are esolangs? 21:26:49 yeah! 21:36:20 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 21:36:23 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Remote closed the connection). 21:44:07 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 21:46:21 -!- jix has joined. 21:57:39 :O 22:45:06 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 22:45:23 -!- Oranjer has left (?). 22:46:44 fizzie, there? About that OpenTTD adder. What if you had used a faster type of train? And possibly faster railway too (like maglev) 22:47:24 fizzie, oh and did you use path based signaling or just pre-signals/normal ones 22:47:40 Well, it'd be faster by a constant factor. 22:47:49 fizzie, hm? 22:48:06 ah *constant factor* 22:48:07 With a faster train and a faster railway. 22:48:10 read it as "constant" first 22:48:15 which was a bit confusing 22:49:27 fizzie, what about the path based signal-stuff? 22:50:30 And path-based signaling wasn't in OpenTTD way back when I did that stuff. I had to use a SVN checkout even to get the "new pathfinding" (NPF) stuff, which was quite some time ago, since they already have made a third "new" pathfinding (YAPF) thing. 22:51:05 Latest release at that time was 0.4.0.1. 22:51:19 ah 22:51:27 fizzie, so is that likely to work on modern openttd? 22:51:37 anyway, what was the url now again 22:51:49 zem.fi/ and the link's on the front page. 22:51:59 download on page? 22:52:12 I mean, the save game or whatever 22:52:21 I don't think I ever got save games uploaded anywhere, actually. 22:52:27 ouch 22:52:33 and I presume you lost them? 22:52:43 Not... necessarily. But it is possible. 22:52:51 fizzie, care to look? 22:53:19 Only png files in the web-directory, at least. Let's check other places. 22:53:44 home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 21065 2005-10-21 19:49 home/fis/.openttd/save/gate.sav 22:53:45 home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 21578 2005-10-21 22:17 home/fis/.openttd/save/gatemap.sav 22:53:45 home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 21198 2005-10-23 13:16 home/fis/.openttd/save/gate20.sav 22:53:45 home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 32124 2005-10-23 17:00 home/fis/.openttd/save/4adder.sav 22:53:47 That looks promising. 22:53:59 yeah 22:54:40 Extricating; will take a while to gunzip all that stuff. 22:55:31 fizzie, just extract the relevant files? 22:55:50 (pretty sure tar supports that) 22:55:55 It's a .tar.gz; it will necessarily have to gzip everything to *find* the relevant files. 22:56:18 hm 22:56:25 I did extract only those, but since there's no tar-index-outside-the-gzip-stream, it can't really take any shortcuts. 22:56:34 right 22:56:59 * AnMaster waits for fizzie to upload it 22:57:09 I'm not quite sure which file is which, but at least http://zem.fi/~fis/4adder.sav is the most complicated four-adder configuration. 22:57:26 ah 22:57:39 fizzie, 403 22:57:53 Whoops, forgot to mount my public_html directory. 22:58:07 fizzie, to mount it? *blink* 22:58:08 oh... 22:58:13 fuse sshfs? 22:58:41 Yes; it's physically on the web server, I just mount it to ~/www/ on this desktop to share things. 22:58:43 Anyway, now it's there. 22:59:03 fizzie, not the other files? 22:59:25 I'm not sure what to share. I should run openttd and check. 22:59:31 ah 23:00:17 There's "logic {1,2,3,4}.sav" and a "logic broken.sav" and "2logic, fixed.sav" and I don't quite know what the names mean. The one-track logic part is not especially interesting, since it's just so fiddly with the clocking. 23:01:06 I'll try to find the messy nor gate and the generic two-input logic gate, though. 23:03:13 I seem to have OpenTTD 0.7.3 installed here, that's pretty recent. 23:03:31 fizzie, any easy way to remove the trains and then replace them there? I mean, to use the "upgrade track" thingy, the trains must be removed :/ 23:04:10 Ugh, I don't really know. I seem to think there was some sort of trick to upgrading trains without having to manually copy the rulesets. 23:04:34 fizzie, well yes but also the trains are *everywhere* 23:04:41 and moving them all to depots is ugh 23:05:20 You can send them into depots from the train list. 23:06:04 fizzie, is that safe to keep the state? Hm 23:06:35 as in, will things break when you send them out again 23:07:14 They shouldn't, though I'm not sure what those "input trains" at the A0 .. B3 labels will do. 23:07:26 fizzie, nor am I 23:07:32 They don't have any depots to go to, so I would hope they don't start wandering around. 23:07:45 wait, you could split them up into another list 23:07:54 Yes, I guess so. 23:08:14 The actual per-gate trains should be safe to send to depots, since they do that all the time by itself too. 23:08:27 Anyway, you can also wait until I find the single gate; it's smaller to play with. 23:08:58 The nor gate is at http://zem.fi/~fis/nor.sav -- it seems to complain quite a lot about trains having too few orders, but other than that I think it still works. 23:09:30 argh the messages about too few orders 23:09:48 You can probably disable those from the message settings. 23:10:12 fizzie, prettu sure it is a openttd.conf thingy 23:10:13 http://zem.fi/~fis/gate.sav is the generic gate (configured as nand) I think I used to copy all over the map. 23:11:00 It could be that "Advice / information on company's vehicles" setting, but I guess that covers more. 23:11:36 fizzie, oh btw that huge image can be shrunken with several hundred kb at least 23:11:46 3319743 3201065 96% ttd_4adder.png 23:11:46 3319743 3201065 96% 23:11:53 and that is just advpng -z4 23:12:01 * AnMaster waits for optipng and advdef 23:12:08 I'm pretty sure I don't really care, though. :p 23:12:27 -!- adam_d has quit ("Leaving"). 23:16:40 fizzie, oh btw you can't make those trains actually reach a depot 23:16:55 Which trains? 23:17:02 fizzie, the gates ones 23:17:18 they just go back and forth between a pair of signals 23:17:20 all of them 23:17:35 (different pairs though) 23:18:27 seems they can't find a route, any of them 23:18:28 Oh, right; you'll probably have to clear the inputs (move the A0 .. B3 trains to the "neutral" area so that they don't occupy either the 0 or 1 track) to get the gate-trains to depots. 23:19:00 fizzie, where is the neutral area? 23:19:14 at the pointy ends? 23:19:29 Yes. The place where they don't occupy either one of the outgoing tracks. 23:19:50 hrm no waypoints set there. Could move signals though 23:20:30 Don't the trains just start moving blindly if you release them? You can reverse them manually to move them to the right direction. 23:20:51 Alternatively, you could stick depots into the pointy ends, then you'd get it working by doing a global send-all-to-depots thing. 23:20:52 oh true 23:21:51 The gate trains won't move until the inputs change, to make sure that when the input "signal" is stable, they stay in the track area that's responsible for generating the output signals. 23:24:50 The nor gate's real messy, but the switchable generic two-input gate has a reasonably clear and simple structure; you have the gate-train branching first left/right depending on whether the A0 or A1 track is occupied, then doing another such branching based on B0/B1; then it ends up in a track segment that's connected to the output switchboard (so you can select which output signal is generated by any Ax, Bx pair), and finally the corresponding occupied track 23:24:50 s are connected so that it can't move until that input track clears. 23:24:58 mhm 23:25:28 what about nor then? 23:26:07 That's just a mess, I have no idea how it works. 23:26:10 fizzie, does the bridge type matter btw? 23:26:44 No, nothing goes over the bridges anyway (except signals). 23:27:29 fizzie, will a dual length train mess up anything? 23:28:01 I don't think so, at least in the generic gate there's quite a lot of space wasted. 23:29:00 anyway you have to upgrade one by one, though orders are kept 23:29:04 Actually I seem to have sort-of documented how the nor gate works on that web page; it seems to be a bit of a simplification since when A=1, (A nor B) is always 1 too, and so the gate train doesn't need to make that many decisions. 23:29:52 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 23:30:06 I don't suppose you can use the autoreplace feature to upgrade trains? 23:30:26 I haven't really looked at these newfangled things. 23:30:44 Yes, you can 23:31:03 Deewiant: Why then does the Replacing Vehicles wiki-page say "Naturally it is not possible to upgrade between different types of train because the train would need to be able to enter a depot and leave as a new type"? 23:31:20 Deewiant, you can, except when you upgrade rail type 23:31:26 like railway -> maglev 23:31:30 fizzie: It means you can't go from monorail to maglev, for instance 23:31:40 Since a monorail depot is not a maglev depot 23:31:44 Deewiant: Right, well, that's what I meant by "upgrade". 23:31:44 Deewiant, that is what we are discussing here 23:31:54 Aha. 23:31:58 I guess it might not be standard terminology. 23:32:06 I didn't see that in about 5 lines of context so I assumed generic upgrading 23:32:24 Deewiant: AnMaster wants faster trains so my logic gates would work faster. :p 23:32:45 :-D 23:33:56 I'm trying to think of a suitable analogue here, something about improving inherently useless things to be "better" but still useless, but can't come up with anything right now. 23:34:25 (Gone for a while now.) 23:36:26 -!- FireFly has quit ("Later"). 23:36:57 -!- Oranjer has joined. 23:38:32 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection). 23:38:48 fizzie, you said they didn't go over bridges? they do when neutral 23:39:03 uhh what 23:39:34 Oranjer, http://zem.fi/ttd_logic/ 23:40:13 ha! 23:40:35 reminds me of some sorta logical psychogeography 23:40:59 "psychogeography"? 23:41:07 aye 23:41:26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography 23:41:40 but with logic! 23:56:01 -!- FireFly[DS] has joined. 23:57:28 heh, FireFly[DS] 23:57:44 Yup 23:57:48 hola 23:58:13 what's up? 23:58:13 Though I should prolly sleep 23:58:13 oh? what time is it there? 23:58:21 00:57 23:58:25 :O 23:58:29 :/ 23:58:34 night too 23:58:44 heh, I'm usually up 'til 4 in the morning anyway 23:59:07 it's 7 in the evening here, EST! whoo! 23:59:15 School starts at 8:10 tomorrow 23:59:24 ._. 23:59:25 :O 23:59:43 you got 6 hours of sleep, right?