00:18:05 okay, opinions 00:18:11 i have one of those 00:18:39 i need to have ' and `... where the other should be a lisp quote and the other the same in the other direction 00:18:54 like 'X = X and X` = X? 00:18:58 the other means whatever follows it is a funciton 00:19:03 ah 00:19:04 so 00:19:12 the other means whatever follows is a value 00:19:15 'X = X, X` = .... X is a function? 00:19:23 `X means a is a function 00:19:29 'X means X is a value 00:19:32 but not a, X 00:19:38 now my question is 00:19:42 which shuold mean which 00:19:47 that was a random choise 00:19:49 ' == value 00:19:51 *should 00:19:57 lisp heritage must be respected ;) 00:19:59 need some parens too! 00:20:06 (cadr '(1 2 3)) 00:20:08 hmm 00:20:41 hey - that's a good idea, an anti-golf contest 00:20:46 you almost never need to tell manually something is a function 00:20:50 biggest and slowest program you can make e.g. print hello world 00:21:19 heh - it'd certainly be easier to write an anti-golf-helper-bot than a golf-helper-bot that exists... 00:21:27 `4 4 would mean (lambda a:4)(4) if you know python, but that's just sick 00:21:39 ehird`: Please. . . 00:21:43 where `4 would be the infix funciton 00:21:44 That's almost too easy. 00:22:08 Step 1: fix up C2BF a bit. 00:22:12 Pikhq: i like that one on everything2 that makes a random string, checks if its md5 hash is == hworlds, and prints it if so 00:22:18 Step 2: Get the C++>C compiler working. 00:22:22 apparently it'll take a few hundred years to work 00:22:49 Step 3: Write a horribly bloated C++ "Hello, world" program using a few classes per character. 00:22:57 Step 4: Enjoy. 00:23:06 Pikhq: i think i hate you 00:23:16 ehird`: your way is better because ' (which is ' on my screen but shouldn't be) is faster to make, and the other one is never really needed 00:23:21 so i'll use it 00:23:22 What? Don't like C++>C>BF compilation? 00:23:30 step 3 too 00:23:41 >:D 00:23:46 i have parens, and that would be legal code in this language, but for a different reason 00:24:09 `'`'`''`'`''`'`````skskskskskskk -- is that valid code in your language 00:24:11 :-) http://www.ninjapirate.com/images/math-of-sex3.gif 00:24:16 because if it is some serious obfuscation could be done 00:24:18 Maybe shove a C->BF->C compilation stage. . . 00:24:40 ehird`: yes, it is 00:24:53 Pikhq: heh. while size < huge, compile BF to unoptimized C, compile it with C2BF, repeat 00:25:54 c2bf doesn't work on os x... 00:25:58 compilation fails and ld segfaults 00:26:03 making a busy beaver? 00:26:05 Blame Gregor. 00:26:54 * ehird` wonders what syntax would allow tons of perl code to be run unmodified but do completely different things 00:26:58 probably entirely sigils and ids 00:27:22 ehird`: Which language do you propose for this anti-golf? 00:27:31 $%<:,{^23}+(*&4)<^; <-- factorial! heh. 00:27:36 Pikhq: um - any i guess 00:27:38 (please say any. . .) 00:27:41 heh 00:27:44 Hmm. 00:27:51 Now, how many languages can I pull into this? 00:27:58 ...oh...my...go 00:28:30 anti-golf? 00:28:39 oklopol: biggest, slowest program 00:28:41 !golf 00:28:47 For "Hello, world". 00:28:50 thought so 00:28:51 well 00:28:52 for anything 00:29:26 slowest... that's kinda stupid cuz anyone can write one that takes a trillion years 00:29:33 good 00:29:36 extra points 00:29:43 unless you have to prove how long it'll take 00:29:46 Hrm. . . 99bottles/99.{c,perl,py,tcl,b,c++,sh,zsh,csh}, anyone? 00:30:11 slowest makes sense 00:30:28 write a short (under X characters), terminating program that takes the most steps. 00:30:49 not short 00:30:50 largest 00:30:54 The judging should be on style, not size. 00:31:14 write the biggest terminating program that takes the most steps, in the most ugly, hilarious, convuloted, obfuscated-but-not-like-the-ioccc, slowest way 00:31:14 . . . Realistically though, why bother judging? Just submit some weird-ass code. :p 00:31:56 * ehird` wonders why so many people like brainfuck 00:31:59 its classic, but ... 00:32:15 ehird`: largest is easy to write. 00:32:23 shortest is actually a challenge. 00:32:26 lament: who cares 00:32:31 ehird`: most people. 00:32:37 lament: "Most evil" is more of a challenge. 00:32:42 http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/SuperPar now this is nice and evil 00:32:49 i might write my entries in that 00:33:34 Perhaps a "Hello, World" program which uses C to implement a PESOIX brainfuck interpreter which invokes a server which a different C program accesses? 00:34:00 Pikhq: s/C/Unlambda 00:34:20 s/Unlambda/x86 assembly/ 00:34:21 + http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Self-modifying_Brainfuck as the brainfuck dialect 00:34:44 + http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Please_Porige_Hot for....the protocol or something 00:36:52 00:29:08 < lament> write a short (under X characters), terminating program that takes the most steps. <--- That is the Busy Beaver problem, and if yu require that the program eventually halt, it isn't computable. 00:37:10 SimonRC: most == most in the competition 00:37:20 indeed 00:38:11 SimonRC: the competitors must know how it works, then it's computable 00:39:15 plus given any X > 100 the program will easily take so many steps it will not terminate this lifetime, in pretty much any language 00:39:30 100 was of course a totally random choise 00:39:51 oklopol: not in cobol 00:40:04 cobo-obol 00:40:08 cobol is not tc 00:40:13 so... who cares 00:40:18 it isn't? 00:40:21 (might be, dunno that well) 00:40:26 i mean the real cobol 00:40:33 it seems the first thing you do is allocate memory 00:40:42 and... that's pretty much the memory you'll have 00:40:44 real cobol, dude 00:40:49 Common oriented business language 00:40:59 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL 00:41:05 woop woop woop :< 00:41:16 ADD ONE TO OKLOPOL GIVING OKLOPOL 00:41:56 oh... that's not the cobol i've seen 00:42:04 it's a real, serious language. 00:42:12 seriously did you not know about cobol??????? 00:42:23 i've read my fathers tutorials from like the sixties 00:42:25 or nineties 00:42:32 whatever, ancient anyweay 00:42:36 *-e 00:42:42 -!- ehird` has quit. 00:42:53 :< 00:43:05 now that was just rude 00:51:50 you're a helpful lot, i just write my question and come up with the answer before even sending it on the channel 00:54:41 SimonRC: that makes no sense 00:54:46 http://www.ninjapirate.com/images/math-of-sex3.gif 00:54:48 that 00:54:56 oklopol: hmm? 00:55:28 ihope: if you don't understand something i say, it's a bad joke 00:55:38 usually 00:55:39 * ihope nods 00:57:05 1 5 3 frombase 10 tobase 5 01:11:28 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht"). 01:13:15 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+"). 01:16:04 which is most reverse-y? '\', '/' or '%' 01:18:05 \ 01:18:42 ah, reverse division, because that char is so rarely used 01:19:05 i like to try to have a reason for every choise 01:19:41 It just seems reversey, because it's the reverse of everything Unixy except for escapes. . . 01:20:23 can you clarify, i'm not familiar with unix 01:20:31 (though ircing on linux) 01:21:19 Path seperators, for one, are / in Unix. 01:22:43 ah okily 01:23:44 a\b is map a to list b, and \a is reverse list a... i see the logic there 01:23:55 but i'll go with that 01:28:13 frombase={:LB->{[]B->0;LB->B*':L+.L}\LB;} 01:28:54 now if i could just get pattern matching ( -> ) be a normal function somehow... 01:29:24 i mean, not have it abide by it's own weird rules 01:29:41 because that's exactly what i try to discourage 01:29:51 ...in this lang, not generally 01:56:12 hehe, i have lisp-like quotes, but for a different reason, plof-like lambda specifiers (: and .), but for a different reason :P 01:56:23 i also had a third one in the same category, but i forgot it 01:56:41 this sounds like a monologue 01:56:52 i promised myself i'd stop doing them :\ 02:02:59 You've got too much creativity. . . 02:03:05 TO THE PLOF FOR YE! 02:05:30 i haven't yet gotten acquinted (<- fix my word) with plof 02:05:35 but prolly soon 02:05:59 is there a graphics library for plof? :P 02:06:04 No. 02:06:12 Are you willing to make one? 02:06:31 sure, but i can't, since that's not what i do 02:06:43 i mean, i'd love to make one 02:06:44 If you want to call an existing one, either make a better C calling interface, or use dlcall and friends. . . 02:06:46 but can't 02:07:34 does plof have c-import? 02:08:08 No, it's *current* external call interface is via the dlcall functions. 02:08:17 dlcall? 02:08:27 you're talking to a noob, remember that 02:09:01 dlcall is a function which lets you dynamicly load libraries and call functions in them. 02:09:09 Bit of a pain to use. 02:09:17 why exactly? 02:09:36 dlcall("okofok.dll","get_number_4") 02:09:39 ? 02:09:42 Pull up the man page; you'll see whay fairly soon. 02:09:54 it is not like that? 02:10:03 It's *close*, but more annoying. 02:10:10 well, why not make it like that? 02:10:31 Because the dlcall functions are pretty much thin wrappers around the C version. . . 02:10:42 Because that would involve a lookup every time you dlcall'd a function. 02:10:52 Which, in a language is inefficient as Plof, is a nonissue :P 02:10:53 That too. 02:11:05 this is why you could have new dlcaller("okofok.dll") 02:11:13 if i understood you correctly 02:11:15 oklopol: That's a lot closer. 02:11:17 which i never seem to do 02:11:41 dlopen("file.so"); 02:12:08 var a=new dlcaller("okofok.dll");a.call("get_number_4"); 02:12:10 Err. 02:12:13 why not like htat? 02:12:15 htht 02:12:39 Hmm. Actually, that'd be a fairly easy object to make. . . 02:12:43 yes 02:12:47 so why not make it? 02:13:11 Because I'd rather make a better interface. 02:14:06 it could also have things like a.store_function_as("get_number_2","1"); and then a.call_quick("2") in case that would provide any speedup 02:14:18 okay 02:14:32 *"1" or course 02:16:27 assuming ^ is xor, what would that mean for two sets? 02:16:51 | is union, & is intersection 02:17:13 heh 02:17:19 that was trivial 02:17:20 sorry 02:17:48 wow 02:18:56 + makes sence for lists, while - doesn't, whereas both make sence for sets, but | can be used for their addition 02:19:22 so... everyone's happy and no distinction need be made between sets and lists 02:38:30 So - only sort of makes sense? 02:41:48 whaddya mean? 02:42:22 agr + r = agrr, agr | r = agr 02:42:34 agr - r = ag 02:42:49 so lists can be used as sets 02:42:52 in this case 03:57:51 it turns out you can actually reset every operator in oklotalk without any harm done... since every operator is essentially just the empty lambda {} 03:58:19 they are just overloaded by everyone 03:58:25 because they are slaves 03:58:37 filthy, filthy slaves 03:58:47 sun is rising... better get some sleep 03:58:55 nah 04:02:33 You do sound a little tired. 04:02:48 /time to the rescue! 04:04:05 Egad. You're seven hours ahead of me, meaning... well, hmm. 04:05:21 it's sex o'clock 04:05:52 SEE HOW TIRED YOU ARE? HUH? 04:07:09 i have some ed (energy drink none know) in the fridge 04:07:32 but it might be nice to get _some_ sleep 04:07:58 then again, i will not wake up before 15:00 if i go to sleep now 04:08:10 and if i wait till tonight, i'll sleep the whole sunday 04:08:53 i'll see what happens 04:10:00 Why do you need to not sleep now? 04:10:27 i'm writing a spec for oklotalk... finally decided to begin with it 04:11:06 it's much less fun when i'm not tired 04:11:23 I see. 04:11:40 So it's much more fun when you're tired. 04:12:11 well deduced. 04:12:36 Thank you. 04:14:48 well, if i'm sleepy tired, it does not work; only 'hehe poo' sleepy is good for programming 04:14:57 hehe poo xD 04:15:45 it's fun because it's poisonous 04:18:36 Contagious, you mean? 04:18:48 why would i mean that? 04:19:03 i was quoting zoidberg 04:19:52 Oh. 04:20:01 What's that? 04:20:14 have you watched futurama? 04:20:35 Nope. 04:20:37 i've seen it about three times 04:20:45 anyway 04:20:50 the doctor of the ship 04:20:53 great characer 04:20:58 *character 04:21:16 a giant crab 04:21:20 or something 04:23:34 I see. 04:24:42 why contagious? 04:24:53 ah 04:24:58 took me a while :) 04:45:27 okay, now sleep ---> 05:27:06 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:34:04 -!- sebbu has joined. 09:04:38 -!- oerjan has joined. 09:57:14 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 12:25:58 i had a lucid dream i did some serious flooding on this channel 12:26:30 but i had to stop when i suddenly started spinning around in the air 14:03:32 -!- ihope has joined. 14:13:30 -!- jix__ has joined. 14:16:01 -!- jix__ has changed nick to jix. 16:01:10 -!- oerjan has joined. 16:17:05 I have a dream. . . A dream of a day where BFM has a test suite, so that I can actually figure out which language-specific macros are failing. . . 16:58:03 -!- ihope_ has joined. 17:13:14 * Pikhq now sees that he's got a bug which involves the itoa call. . . 17:14:52 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 17:20:44 What's odd is that there *shouldn't* be anything wrong with that call. 17:22:26 you know you _could_ cheat and include a debug print command 17:23:32 oerjan: Or I could do lang {printf("%i", random_cell);} 17:24:05 Only *useful* if the target language is C (which it is ATM). . . 17:24:44 * Pikhq is just getting frustrated that the C backend works, but the C-specific macros don't 17:25:37 have you looked at the C output? 17:26:27 I have. 17:26:34 It *looks* right. 17:27:08 So far, I've been able to figure out that the issue is not in optimize.tcl 17:29:25 Nor is the issue in c/copy.bfm or c/move.bfm 17:32:12 well, can you find the first point at which a variable does not have the expected contents? 17:32:32 Found the issue. 17:32:37 c/subvar.bfm is broken. 17:32:45 ok 17:33:44 Now just to figure out *how* it's broken. 17:34:04 Ah. Storing in y, not x. 17:36:39 Seems that I'm also triggering a bug any time that more than two digits are needed from itoa.bfm -_-' 17:36:59 Specifically, an infinite loop. 17:48:41 *That* much is broken in my optimization pass. 17:54:50 Fixed. 18:02:05 Now, if I can just figure out how divvar.bfm and divmod.bfm are borken. . . 18:02:26 Got it. 18:06:21 . . . Except that it fails when it goes beyond 128. 18:06:33 p+=/.(; 18:06:39 Unless you think that looks like 128 to you. 18:06:59 a remarkable likeness. 18:08:12 * Pikhq blames div(); from stdlib 18:08:41 i note that those characters are just _below_ "0". maybe it is subtracting rather than adding. 18:09:26 indeed they are 48-1, 48-2, 48-8 18:10:16 are you using signed chars? 18:10:23 I'm using just "char". 18:10:37 Which can be either signed or unsigned. . . 18:10:38 *groan* 18:10:49 It's probably doing a sign change there. 18:12:08 Any clue what you have to pass to gcc to tell it to treat chars as unsigned? 18:12:19 (just so I can see if that's what's causing it) 18:12:19 _all_ chars? no. 18:12:39 but you can of course replace char by unsigned char 18:12:43 -funsigned-char 18:13:04 That fixes it. 18:14:45 Hmm. . . Now, what other macros shall I rewrite? 18:15:13 for what purpose? 18:15:52 I'm making some C-specific macros (in stdlib/c/), to take advantage of my new language-specific macros feature; this should allow for faster output code. 18:16:21 * Pikhq should do the same for the interpreter; that's the slowest backend of them all 18:29:51 Well, the C backend is probably the most efficient one. . . 18:32:36 Basm takes 0.18 seconds to compile LostKng.b with it. 18:34:02 * SimonRC finds some fake double-RAS-syndrome: "Dynamic DNS Server" 18:34:16 0.17s without newlines. 18:34:18 Pikhq: you ported LK from BFBASIC to BASM?! 18:34:35 SimonRC: Basm is my Brainfuck compiler. 18:34:41 And I should rename it. 18:34:42 ah, ok 18:35:00 Pikhq: Is the source online anywhere? 18:35:26 SimonRC: Yes. . . 18:35:33 http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/basm.tar.bz2 18:35:35 where? 18:35:37 Requires bfm: 18:35:37 ok 18:35:45 http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/bfm.tar.bz2 18:35:56 (my new BFM improvements will be up as soon as I'm done) 18:36:22 *That* tarball is up to date, except for the language-specific macros feature (not *needed* for basm; just makes it run faster) 18:37:33 So, what does it actally do? BF -> C? 18:38:15 Basm does, yes. 18:38:54 BFM does BFFM->(Brainfuck,C,interpret) 18:39:11 . . . And apparently, GCC is a friggin' memory hog when it tries to compile LostKng.c 18:39:24 # I'm going to rise and dawn // with no clothes on // and colours on my skin. // Colours of life and love // from heaven above // absolve me of my sin. # 18:39:40 Pikhq: could be the interference graphs that do it. 18:39:54 -- "Ode to Crayola" by Lemon Demon 18:40:09 SimonRC: Um, why would that matter? -O0. . . 18:40:17 ah, ok 18:44:08 what is the difference between the "-1" files and the "0" files 18:47:46 basm.-1.b and basm.0.b were compiled with different assumptions for what EOF iis. 18:47:56 ah, of course 18:48:12 basm.0.b assumes EOF=0 or no change, and the code it outputs provide for that. 18:48:27 yeah 18:48:45 I bet the issue with my memory-hogging compiler is just that 4.1 is a bit more memory-using. 18:49:39 Mmkay, gcc-3.4.6 is using a lot of memory as well, but it's not thrashing. 18:49:41 If it becomes inconvinient, you could try asking the devs. 18:49:50 . . . And it finished in 30 seconds. 18:49:57 gcc should support generated code as well as human-written stuff 18:50:05 SimonRC: I spent 5 minutes trying to get gcc-4.1.2 to stop. 18:50:10 !! 18:50:22 It was thrashing that damned much. 18:50:29 (and I've got 1G of RAM) 18:50:33 Pikhq: you could try making major lops into their own subroutines. 18:50:53 In basm? 18:50:57 Jeeze. . . 18:51:07 Sorry, but I'd rather not do that *in Brainfuck*. 18:51:27 Well, if your compiler wasn't written in BF, admittedly it would be sensible. 18:51:36 It would be. 18:51:47 Of course, I think the issue lies more in GCC. 18:51:55 * SimonRC contemplates writing one in Haskell. 18:52:07 Honestly. . . 700MB RAM for 2MB of code?!? 18:52:15 heh 18:52:55 Maybe it's trying to analyse the array usage to see if it can do some of it in registers. 18:53:16 . . . But *why* do that for -O0?!? 18:53:31 seriously, ask the devs if they know what is making it do that, and if you can turn it off 18:54:03 I think using 700MB of RAM for a 2MB file at -O0 counts as a bug. 18:54:33 depends what -O0 actually does. 18:54:51 or rather, how optimisations get turned off 18:55:19 if (e.g.) it is building data-flow graphs then throwing them away again, -O0 won't help memry usage much 18:56:26 Um ... it depends on what that 2MB of code is doing. 18:56:40 compiled BF 18:56:44 GregorR: It's a somewhat naive translation of LostKng.b into C 18:56:57 Whole lot of pointer arithmetic. 18:56:58 Why not just use EgoBFC? ;) 18:57:10 Because then I wouldn't be testing my *own* compiler. 18:57:30 's called a joke :P 19:08:51 oerjan: what's a "speech" in norwegian? or if anyone knows swedish, in that. 19:09:16 tale 19:09:45 hmm... you don't happen to know what it is in swedish? :P 19:09:45 hmm 19:09:47 actually 19:09:51 it's that prolly 19:11:31 actually i think swedish is "tal" 19:12:19 www.tal.se 19:12:38 well, i don't think it makes that much difference... i'm not that good 19:13:01 but i'll put tal 19:13:22 the swedish is neuter, the norwegian is masculine 19:15:31 hmm 19:15:45 en = which? 19:16:05 en / ett, but masculine, neuter and feminine 19:16:10 how come? 19:16:46 i don't think swedish has masculine/feminine distinction 19:17:15 norwegian: en (m), ei (f), et (n) 19:17:29 i meant norwegian 19:17:37 and i though you have just two articles 19:17:41 but i was wrong it seems 19:18:50 no but the feminine is relatively rare in bokmål 19:20:09 in the most conservative forms they use en for that too 19:21:33 (but still with -a definite ending unless it is even more conservative) 20:03:38 -!- iswm has quit ("Leaving"). 20:08:45 -!- mtve has joined. 20:38:31 * SimonRC wonders WTF ever one of his windows processes has a PID that is a multiple of 4 20:38:39 XP, in case you were wondering 20:40:24 Security, of course. 20:40:44 :-S 20:40:57 If one of the PIDs weren't a multiple of 4, that process could obviously hack into your system and destroy everything. 20:41:52 See, there's always a process with a PID of 4, maybe, so PID arithmetic would allow such a process to attain a PID of 1, which is omnipotent. 20:42:06 Actually, 2 and 3 are omnipotent as well. But 4 isn't, which is why they chose that. 20:42:17 sigh 20:42:28 Sigh? 20:42:38 i note that some of the processes clearly have specially assigned numbers 20:42:50 e.g. IEXPLORE = 2500 20:46:34 not here it doesn't 20:46:43 probably just random 20:47:16 i just cannot believe that. 20:48:26 ok 20:48:37 kill it and re-start, to see if it gets the same PID 20:48:41 re-try a few times 20:50:31 * Pikhq should learn asm. . . 20:50:48 whoops, you were right, now it is 2880 20:51:43 and 2576 20:51:47 hah 20:52:10 # Go and fake your death ok? // 'Cause I am not here I am not here. # 21:03:41 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 21:05:34 -!- Sgeo has joined. 21:05:57 . . . Meh. 21:06:20 [[j$++=]~{f2%}@a2@a1@a0!!~]&a,. 21:23:21 -!- sebbu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 21:27:24 oklopol: a lucid dream and the best you can do is irc? 21:28:02 i did other stuff too 21:28:07 it lasted like 2 hours 21:28:33 "ok, let me first check on the irc channels..." 21:29:17 basically i flew around, had sex, killed people and woke up for a few minutes at random, but at some point i wasn't really sure whether i was asleep or not, so i thought i'd flood a bit to have proof later 21:30:07 i _think_ it might have been an idea to do the proof thing before you started killing people :D 21:30:30 flying was the only unrealistic thing i could do 21:30:42 i knew that because i was in a place i' 21:30:47 ve never seen 21:30:51 in the middle of the night 21:31:07 whereas i could easily have woken up in the night and been in my room 21:32:27 once i had this lucid dream that just kept on going for hours, or so it seemed, every time i woke up, something came and killed me, and i couldn't wake up for real 21:33:16 and this other time i sat around a table while dinosaur played card there... and tried to wake up but couldn'y 21:33:24 i could write a book about my dreams 21:34:24 i used to have dreams about trying to wake up but not so much nowadays 21:35:01 the other night i had a dream with at least 5 levels of recursion 21:35:47 heh, the best one was so long that when i woke up i took a one hour long walk just to be sure i was awake :) 21:35:49 var dream = :{dream();} 21:35:50 ? 21:36:06 falling asleep inside the dream and having another dream 21:36:10 yeah 21:45:40 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined. 21:54:26 -!- Pikhq has quit ("Leaving."). 21:57:30 -!- Pikhq has joined. 22:11:06 bastard 22:11:10 you have lucid dreams 22:11:30 Called "life". 22:11:35 no 22:11:47 with lucid dreaming you can fly 22:11:51 Pikhq: you can fly in life? 22:12:14 bsmntbombdood: Sure, thanks to the Brothers Wright. 22:12:23 no, not like that 22:12:30 fly without a machine 22:13:05 i've flown in dreams, not lucid ones though 22:13:23 I can kinda do it, but not at will, and I lack the skill to go on for mare than about 10 perceived second without waking up. 22:13:34 maybe planning would help 22:13:42 thinking about it all the time 22:13:59 my instincts tell me that Cosmic Ordering would be very effective 22:14:02 i've had one lucid dream, but i got woken up about 2 seconds into it 22:14:08 SimonRC: i usually wake up as well, once i realize it's a dream 22:14:27 it's rare that it lasts long 22:14:43 maybe maybe maybe you must plan what you are going to do to stop yourself getting over-excited and waking up# 22:15:15 or do like me and drink so much caffeine you can't fall asleep and still try to 22:15:26 gives nice lucids 22:15:37 (BTW, Cosmic Ordering is named after the type of ordering that ne does in, say, a restaurant, rather than being orderly.) 22:15:42 i've given up caffeine 22:15:51 oklopol: nah, I just get weird dreams then 22:16:23 guess it varies... there are many ways ppl say you get lucid dreams for sure 22:16:31 but they all require a change in lifestyle 22:16:41 well, sleeping routines 22:16:48 and daily routines something 22:16:53 *sometimes 22:21:11 oh 22:21:23 I was following the advice on Everything2 22:21:35 or rather, that of which that I could recall 22:22:11 And, as in many ares of my life, the bits that I can recall are really just the ones I believed already. 22:22:39 Godsdamnit that feeling of things slipping away from me when I disagree with them is so annoying. 22:23:13 I read an opinion contrary to mind, and within a few hours, I can remember barely any of it. 22:23:38 If I read an opinion I agree with, I can recall it much better. 22:23:45 yeah 22:23:50 Y'know... 22:24:11 Maybe this happens to almost everyone in the world, but most of them don't notice it... 22:24:18 That would explain a lot of things. 22:24:21 :-) 22:24:28 (Ha, ha, only serious.) 22:25:44 Of course, I already believed that. 22:26:26 Or rather, i was assuming people usually don't notice things they don't believe in in the first place. 22:28:31 Does not apply to the really obvious stuff, of course, but Adams and PTerry were only exaggerating a bit. 22:31:16 but then on another level i also believe some things don't physically happen to people who don't believe them. 22:37:14 * oerjan starts wondering if anyone even saw his last comment :D 22:37:38 i see all 22:52:00 hm 22:52:14 that sounds iffy 22:52:17 give example 22:55:17 http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/cnn_shuttle.jpg 22:57:51 -!- calamari has joined. 22:58:10 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht"). 23:11:10 -!- ehird` has joined. 23:38:46 Pikhq: lol 23:40:10 lofl 23:40:49 18 times the speed of light!!! 23:41:35 (speed of light in a vacuum)^(speed of light in a vacuum) 23:41:35 = big 23:41:45 it's true! 23:42:41 not really 23:42:47 well 23:42:50 not big 23:42:54 but big if you're moving at that speed! 23:42:59 (1 lightyear/year)^(1 lightyear/year) 23:43:14 :-S http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/278240458.html 23:43:45 if that ^ is supposed to be exponentiation, then that is a dimension error 23:43:47 But honestly, "Atlas"?! 23:44:13 * SimonRC uses a gensym. 23:44:14 ;-) 23:44:53 yeah, exponenents should be unitless 23:45:16 and usually integral, for the units' sake 23:45:22 nothing beats making a trivia bot and watching it own 23:45:54 (^) :: (Num a, Integral b) => a -> b -> a 23:45:58 nothing beats making a stupid idiotic chatting bot and watching it run on itself 23:46:21 where? 23:46:22 nah 23:46:23 and hoping it enters an infinite loop soon 23:46:29 did you put it on #debain-flame 23:46:32 haha 23:46:35 markov chains are the best non preprogrammed bots i've seen 23:46:35 Wet, linty, and stupid is no way to start your day. 23:46:36 no, xterm 23:46:39 and they are not good 23:46:48 (maybe i'll cheat - "repeat this phrase" = "repeat this phrase") 23:46:56 #debian-flame doesn't exist, but it fits their naming scheme and conversational topics 23:46:56 SimonRC: quakenet and a finnish channel 23:46:56 and often requests to say "repeat this phrase" 23:47:24 except i don't think that was for me 23:48:08 and where are the "topless picture posting hotties"? 23:48:44 "Why dont the IRC:s comply with Macintosh or is this problem occurring with my comp. only?" 23:52:06 What's this Macintosh compliance all about? 23:52:16 bsmntbombdood: The units on your c^c is, of course, 1 (lightyear/year)^(lightyear/year). . . Which is, of course, a fairly large unit. 23:53:50 large compared to what? 23:54:25 hint: you need something of the same unit to compare with 23:56:49 c^c is large? 23:56:55 What if c is actually very, very small? 23:57:15 every relativistic physicist knows that c = 1 :)