00:01:00 someone points out that emma watson pic probably photoshopped 00:01:09 isn't it obvious 00:03:56 the conclusion i have reached is that religions can't make any claims which are beyond question and still have anything to do with them being religions 00:04:02 I have thought of a few more things about the algorithm I was having problems with recently. 00:04:34 in other words, to 'force' a conversion you have to distort the truth somehow 00:05:05 If you have "A[B]C", then maybe you can deal with "AB" and "AC" separately and then figure out if there is combined way of results like that 00:05:35 Because the result of "A" must agree in the final output 00:06:21 itidus20: some people are gullible or think badly 00:07:04 monqy: yup.. in addition, many people are manipulative and opportunistic 00:07:20 If you have "YZ" but "Y" and "Z" has no words shared in them (such as "-a-a-a-a-a-b-b-b-b-b-a-a-c-c-c-c-c-d-d-d-d-d-c-c-c") then you can treat them separately; I don't know if this helps though. 00:07:45 itidus20: parents 00:08:11 hehe 00:08:45 itidus20: this reminds me of a comment i found on godel's lost letter today: "Buddhism discourages insistence (執著). A common pitfall is to insist on being non-insist." 00:08:54 If there is a word that can only appear once, then possibly it can be ignored. 00:09:16 (in fact i thought of you while reading it, since i had the impression you were something like a buddhist) 00:09:45 oerjan: I have read something like that. 00:10:18 (http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/self-defeating-sentences/#comment-12512) 00:12:29 zzo38: the problem with dealing with AB and AC separately is that the combined cost is essentially A+B+C, meaning that the optimal choice for A might be different in AB, AC and A[B]C 00:12:43 this reminds me of subset sum and that kind of problem 00:13:28 which might lead to a way of proving it NP-complete, perhaps 00:13:38 oerjan: Yes now I can see that too. What is subset sum and that kind of problem? 00:14:17 or maybe hamiltonian circuit stuff as well 00:14:31 any NP-complete problem which requires summing things, i guess 00:14:47 er wait not hamiltonian 00:14:52 What is hamiltonian circuit stuff? I don't know much about these kind of things. I do not have much experience with it. 00:14:52 traveling salesman 00:15:01 oerjan: i hanged out with them.. i never admitted to being one though 00:15:01 :D 00:15:08 (online) 00:15:24 I can look in Wikipedia some things 00:15:43 zzo38: traveling salesman is the problem where you have a map (really graph) with distances between "cities" and you want to find the shortest path which passes through all of them 00:15:48 and i met this one buddhist who was actually quite wise.. 00:16:59 I learned to approach buddhism with a wikipedia mindset. 00:17:10 oerjan: Yes the traveling salesman is one I have heard of, and yes I know what that is. (I don't know much else about it, except that one cover of mathNEWS joked about finding a O(1) solution (which is, shooting them).) 00:17:24 Taking each piece of "text" which comes to me and wondering what it's source is. 00:18:19 ok ok as an example.. as an example 00:18:29 take the bible.. there is no abstract bible. 00:18:35 only instances called bibles 00:18:36 zzo38: oh i realized something, it is not fixed which names have to printed inside each [ ] is it. so you can move printing things across the brackets... 00:18:42 *to be 00:18:56 that makes it even more complicated 00:18:59 each bible was published somewhere.. edited by someone.. liable to errors by that publisher and that editor 00:19:09 oerjan: Moving things across brackets is not allowed. 00:19:51 (Unless it is only temporary in order to help with the algorithm) 00:20:41 oh. 00:20:58 as I gradually start to see things this way I started gradually dismissing buddhism etc. attacking it with loud rants. 00:21:21 Although it doesn't look to be the same problem as hamiltonian or traveling salesmen, I don't know whether there can be similar ideas or not. 00:21:31 and then slowly i started to see that some of the people i thought were friends there were actually just manipulative like rotten apples. 00:21:33 yes iirc buddhism has some trouble tracing back its sources 00:21:53 oerjan: hehe. indeed 00:22:13 islam tried very hard to avoid that, by getting things written down as soon as possible. but of course you still have to believe in muhammed for it. 00:22:40 the trick is to just force everything to follow the rules of logic 00:23:04 that's called science 00:23:15 (i think muhammed criticized older religions for being unreliable in that way, so his followers had particular reason) 00:23:41 lol muhammad was all "let's make this one LAST, guys" 00:23:48 :) 00:24:47 when arguing iwth muslims my attack tends to be of the form "suppose that allah lied to the prophet, or mixed truths with lies" 00:25:22 because they tend to base their case on how the quran contains truths 00:25:38 doesn't allah lie as a rule 00:25:41 not lie i mean 00:26:39 its also worth mentioning that apparently the name means "true god" and yet it is never translated as such which is curious 00:27:01 and im sure theres some psychological tactic to giving him 100 names 00:27:44 yes iirc buddhism has some trouble tracing back its sources <-- on the other hand, Buddhism iirc clearly states that the stories are based on what they heard for a few generations. 00:28:02 but religions as we see them today are set up like puzzles for the houdini to wrestle his way out of 00:28:13 oerjan, so they kind of avoid the problem by explicitly stating that it may or may not be a perfect account 00:28:28 it is not a perfect account :D 00:28:42 those who say it is are naive 00:28:44 itidus20, exactly. And it openly admits it 00:28:49 itidus20, that is my point 00:29:02 Are there other Wikipedia articles that have things that can have some things related to my problem? 00:30:08 vorpal: yeah... but then... you come at buddhism thinking, well is there anything of value in this if i try to have a mindset of seeking truths rather than trying to abide by some community's sense of oblivion 00:30:29 itidus20, hm? I'm not sure I understand what you meant there 00:30:46 right. i'll try and use proper english 00:31:02 itidus20, don't worry, it is not my native language anyway ;P 00:31:37 oh what i said makes no sense. that is true 00:31:51 right, not just me then 00:32:33 basically, there are certain properties common to religions.. a certain heavyness. creating obedience, followers, worshippers. blind faith 00:32:57 itidus20, not blind faith when it comes to Buddhism though 00:33:23 itidus20, I believe one of the books openly state that you should question everything. 00:33:26 haha 00:33:30 but even buddhism has this dominating presence 00:33:30 yes nobody ever corrupts religious texts 00:33:33 like a monolith 00:33:47 fuck this meme of buddhism being this perfect beautiful religion of peaceful nice people NOT LIKE THOSE OTHER RELIGIONS 00:33:51 it's a very subtle aspect of religions, almost unspoken. 00:33:57 I'm not a Buddhist myself, but... looking at the major religions it seems the one *least* out of touch with the modern world 00:34:10 I'm perfectly happy to not believe in a religion. 00:34:24 ha ha ha 00:34:26 ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 00:34:30 ha ha ha ha ah ah h ha ha haha ha ha ha ha haha 00:34:36 elliott_, come on, tell us what is so funny 00:34:39 i did 00:34:47 zzo38: maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems unfortunately it has many non-existent links 00:35:10 a certain someone didnt fuck a certain meme when eliot told -- to 00:35:12 vorpal: the thing is though. simply including a few lines to say "you should question everything" doesn't entirely outweigh the reality-warping presence of a religion. 00:35:18 elliott_, I never claimed buddism was perfect... But as far as I know there has been no holy wars in its name for example. 00:35:22 this is hihgly funyn 00:35:42 itidus20, that is true 00:35:43 it's a valuable statement yeah. 00:35:48 any holy wars in zoroastrianism's name 00:35:59 ?? 00:36:00 elliott_, I never heard of that religion even 00:36:04 heh 00:36:11 uhh.. it's such a statement can be used to lure people into a sense of security 00:36:33 so then it gets very confusing as to where to proceed next 00:37:27 with religion, there is this tendancy to let the mind relax and just believe any nonsense as if under hypnosis 00:37:48 itidus20, good point indeed. But why not follow the advice of putting the religion itself under scrutiny. If you feel you need a religion at all. 00:38:02 some do, some don't 00:38:20 the ones who do tend to be abrasive and cynical 00:38:28 do what? 00:38:29 but good hearted 00:38:32 need religion? 00:38:40 some do put it under scrutiny 00:38:42 ah 00:38:53 * elliott_ bets Vorpal thinks buddhism doesn't have a hell either 00:39:09 am i abrasive and cynical 00:39:12 elliott_, well, that depends on how you define it. 00:39:17 Vorpal: no, it does not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) 00:39:21 hth. 00:40:07 elliott_, sorry you misunderstood it. I was talking about the bit about "thinks" here. I never considered it in fact. I haven't studied the religion in depth, and never claimed to have done that. 00:40:18 hmm 00:40:44 vorpal: so that last point i was making... its really about learning in general.. 00:40:53 itidus20, very deep 00:40:53 theres that point where a religion can't tell you 00:40:58 indeed 00:41:01 yup 00:41:03 thats the clincher 00:41:19 that whole idea about leading a horse to water 00:41:35 itidus20, so pick up a few good suggestions about how to behave towards other people, and then ditch the rest of the religion :P 00:41:44 oh.. its not like that 00:42:15 there is something which a person has to bring about on their own "like a horse drinking from the water" 00:42:33 and.. i don't know what it is 00:42:51 itidus20, err what? 00:43:09 like a person has an innate sense of how to seek truths 00:43:22 but, a religion sort of constrains them 00:43:33 itidus20, You completely lost me now 00:44:12 uhm.. i just lost me too 00:44:21 i understand completely >:D 00:44:45 oerjan, really? 00:45:19 i may be exaggerating a bit 00:45:29 to deny everything in a religion is going too far 00:45:33 it can contain truths 00:45:48 oh yes indeed. 00:45:51 to deny nothing in a religion is not going far enough 00:45:59 agreed 00:46:12 buddhism also references "discrimination" 00:46:31 itidus20, I was not suggesting you would explicitly deny it. Just leave it as "unknown" until further notice. Tri-state logic or something (okay, not quite that) 00:46:51 uhh.. basically........ 00:46:57 comex_: why're you trying to exile coppro 00:47:03 there is never any benefit from playing dumb when seeking truth 00:47:16 like.. pulling punches.. compromising.. making allowances.. 00:47:30 never say never 00:48:23 and religions expect you to just make all these compromises for the benefit of said religion 00:49:11 it is you seeking truth.. 00:49:21 oerjan: That list of NP-complete problems doesn't seem to help me much, especially since most are linked to nonexisting files 00:49:42 and so.. when thinking about a religion a suggestion comes to you "I should deny the evidence before me because my religion says so" 00:51:25 there is no room for white lies in the search for truth 00:51:37 I wonder if there are other ways to change my problem to equivalent ones 00:53:34 zzo38: well the usual way to prove a problem NP-complete is to make a reduction from an NP-complete problem to it, similar to turing-completeness (except the reduction must be polynomial time, not just computable) 00:54:43 oerjan: I used to wish there was an add-on term to TC that included being able to do things with the same time complexity, but then I realised that UTMs are slower than real-world computers 00:55:12 I'm not sure what the correct model is; things with bignum addresses tend to have constant-time natural arithmetic, which is, of course, impossible 00:55:21 (Well, "of course") 00:55:52 yeah anything finer grained than polynomial tends to depend on model 00:56:40 and this leads up to asking if anything of value is left in buddhism if you approach it stoically, to never say "I should deny the evidence before me because my religion says so" 00:56:43 (of course some models like minsky machines don't even get that) 00:57:08 to never say "I should subvert my search for truth for some other purpose" 00:57:13 oerjan: which is upsetting... It seems "obvious" that you can't do addition in constant time, but explaining why tends to invoke a real-world-esque assembly language doing a bignum addition loop 00:57:15 Which is ridiculous 00:57:21 oerjan: OK, I think I understand what you mean (a little bit, at least). I don't know if that can solve my problem, though, or how it can do so. 00:57:31 Why does our universe have these apparent time complexities? 00:57:48 to never say "I should subvert my search for truth because it makes buddhism look bad.. or it offends someone.. or it brings up things I can't face" 00:58:01 -!- Sgeo_ has joined. 00:59:22 and you can always suppose you were the only human left alive.. and try and put yourself in those shoes and wonder which artifacts of religion would persist in your mind despite all the people who care being dead 00:59:30 wow, there's a Wikipedia article on [[Essjay controversy]] 00:59:40 -!- Sgeo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 01:00:10 itidus20: Everything would persist in your mind, you can't "undo" growing up in an environment 01:00:17 yup 01:01:59 elliott_, why wouldn't it? 01:02:07 Sgeo_: ? 01:02:15 wow, there's a Wikipedia article on [[Essjay controversy]] 01:02:40 well, I forgot that it received significant media coverage 01:02:49 and I'm unsure how objective Wikipedia can be on that topic :P 01:03:38 zzo38: it's sad that the Code Generation section is entirely missing links 01:04:41 oerjan: link? 01:04:43 to context 01:05:16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems#Code_generation 01:05:45 oerjan: I can see that. 01:05:53 oerjan: ugh :/ 01:05:54 That isn't the only one. 01:06:07 (reminding that i am not a buddhist before i continue) i think there is a certain error where people invent conceptions to explain religions. 01:06:11 oerjan: Wikipedia tends to lack a lot of in-depth material on CS, I notice; I suspect with a lot of other topics, too 01:06:11 There are other problems entirely missing links 01:06:54 as far as a god goes, if such a god exists you won't find him by trying to imagine a subset of the universe and giving it a booming voice 01:07:13 if there is a god, you don't have to imagine it right? its not about imagining 01:07:24 its just an interpretation of what you see 01:07:31 itidus20: see pantheism 01:07:48 god as the universe, right? 01:07:55 oerjan: /msg 01:07:56 itidus20: yes 01:08:22 suppose i suddenly found a box .. i could spend a week imagining what is inside it 01:08:48 good imagination 01:08:59 I'd probably get bored after a few minutes 01:09:03 And then someone will force you to look inside and now the state is changed due to observing it 01:09:12 well i could iterate through all the items in my bedroom 01:09:24 and suppose that similar items existed in the box 01:10:26 so imagination is not a very accurate tool 01:11:05 you've gone confusing again 01:11:19 well suppose the universe is the box 01:11:24 good supposition 01:11:36 and the reason you can't see is because its too big instead of too small 01:12:11 now if you imagine a god it might be outside of this box, or inside of it, (or both, or neither... ) 01:12:20 or it might be the box 01:12:41 or maybe its an analogy which can't go far enough 01:12:47 whats a god................................ 01:12:58 My opponent's plan doesn't go too far enough! 01:13:11 congratulations 01:13:34 does your plan go too far enough 01:13:42 im not entirely atheist.. im more agnostic i think 01:14:03 if i'm scared enough i'll pray 01:15:16 but then theres this idea of the economics of, on the one hand, a group proliferating the idea of a god, and on the other hand people deriving a sense of security from it 01:16:00 praying in times of stress doesn't stop you being an atheist, it just means you're being irrational at the time (as far as an atheist is concerned) 01:16:04 and a supply demand idea of: if people like me didn't thump bibles all day you wouldn't have any god to take refuge with in times of stress 01:16:12 it would be kind of cool if atheism made you ALL RATIONAL ALL THE TIME 01:16:33 yeah, atheism is a bit of a religion like that.. 01:16:49 um, it is? 01:16:49 it is sticking to a hard line for its own sake rather than examining evidence on it's own merits 01:17:08 nah, that's a corruption of the term by idiots who ~just deconverted~ and religious people 01:17:25 oerjan: I wonder if anyone else can help me, too, with my problem? 01:17:28 to trot out a cliché but accurate example, you wouldn't give credence to the idea of Russell's teapot, either 01:17:44 any "atheist" who thinks they can "disprove" god or that it's LOGICALLY false or whatever is just an idiot 01:18:00 elliott_, doesn't that depend on the definition of "god" in question? 01:18:35 but the idea of prayer as being rational or irrational.. itself may be irrational :P 01:18:38 Sgeo_: plz no, stop before you show ur prolog 01:19:00 itidus20: well from an atheist perspective, thinking prayer will produce results because a god will answer it is obviously irrational 01:19:23 Prayer could produce the "result" of calming you down, even from an atheist perspective 01:20:17 well duh. that still requires suspension of disbelief, which stress happily provides 01:21:06 ok i see 01:21:22 since prayer is worked by imagining a thing being prayed to 01:21:55 which is no doubt due to millenia of this and that 01:22:36 one day maybe the target of prayers won't be a self-interested entiyt 01:23:19 what do you mean by that 01:23:43 prayer is a transitive verb 01:23:48 well prayer like any ritual could act as stress relief. 01:23:56 I would not call it prayer if you don't expect it to "do" anything, though 01:24:01 more just... a ritual 01:24:09 do you mean "one day maybe people will pray to something that isn't a self-interested entity" or "maybe one day the things to which people pray won't be so self-interested" 01:24:59 maybe one day prayer won't be a covert taboo topic evoking religious imagery 01:25:00 :D 01:25:06 i like that second one monqy 01:25:08 itidus20: prayer is taboo? 01:25:16 prayer is like the least taboo thing, at least in some places 01:25:20 but that we are all conditioned to pray to pre-defined gods is clear 01:25:26 that is.. if we pray 01:25:33 It's official, I'm a fucking idiot. I was pressing the power button on my case because I was convinced that my case falli't attached to anything. I was wrong 01:25:43 *falling apart meant it 01:25:47 meant it wasn't 01:26:38 im starting to lose a grip on reality in my posts now 01:27:23 pray to the flying spaghetti monster 01:27:25 :D 01:28:17 no ;-; 01:28:31 oh what i mean is 01:28:37 yeah.. fsm is a constructed god 01:29:14 i don't know the story of all the gods etc 01:29:35 but fsm is certainly a constructed god just as scientology is a constructed religion 01:29:47 and how esperanto and lojban are constructed languages 01:30:24 or is the word esoteric 01:30:30 esoteric vs constructed 01:30:56 Scientology is not a proper religion, I think 01:31:04 proper? 01:31:43 proper? 01:31:56 it's a cult, but cult is just a word for religions that do things people don't like 01:32:09 It is more like someone who try to earn money and keep everything secret and so on they have reports. 01:32:19 the Church of Scientology(tm) is obviously a completely abhorrent organisation, objectively, but I don't see how you can dismiss the beliefs any more than another religion 01:32:28 there are freezoners who practice the beliefs outside of the CoS. 01:32:56 elliott_: I don't know about the freezoners. But maybe they are a more proper religion; I don't know. 01:33:15 zzo38: religion =/= religious organisation 01:33:32 Scientology-ala-CoS and Scientology-ala-free-zoners may be sects but they're the same religion 01:33:47 OK 01:35:22 linguistically "the truth" implies only one truth 01:36:15 the truth is the set of all things that are true 01:36:27 presumably you're proposing logical relativism 01:36:35 would the truth explain collective conciousness? 01:36:46 define "collective consciousness" :P 01:38:27 each individual probably has memories of being conscious in the past 01:38:35 former instances of their conciousness 01:38:54 and thus can potentially anticipate future instances of their conciousness 01:39:30 and can also try to guess what anothers conciousness is like.. but never really know 01:40:01 and so taking each individuals conciousness as a specific thing, one can imagine a generalization of conciousness 01:40:10 it has a visual field for example.. 01:40:59 but all these visual fields.. 01:41:10 each individual probably has memories of being conscious in the past 01:41:13 they don't seem to occupy a known space 01:41:14 what makes you say this? 01:41:20 but at the same time, I don't see how this relates to "the truth" 01:41:36 _everything_ relates to "the truth" :P 01:41:46 well that is not very helpful 01:42:01 how does the truth need to explain collective consciousness? 01:42:06 I don't think pure consciousness would have a visual field for sure. It might be related but I think it is not the same thing at all 01:42:09 (and why does the truth have any obligations at all?) 01:42:22 ok i am throwing a few fallacies around 01:42:26 have to catch myself.. 01:42:47 given that i don't know what the truth is i can't assume everything relates to it] 01:42:52 yada yada 01:42:58 My ideas of consciousness are very different and incomplete (mostly because I don't know everything). 01:43:44 elliot: good points. 01:43:59 answer is cos it would make life easier 01:44:34 it would be nice to make some general rule 01:44:46 itidus20: btw, i don't get an annoying reminder someone mentioned me if you misspell my name ;-) you could try tab completion ("ell" should do it) 01:44:53 (so I might not reply) 01:45:54 i don't know if my client has name completion 01:46:16 it does 01:46:26 one, every client does; two, you're using XChat 01:47:29 hehe 01:47:36 -!- Lymee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 01:47:52 if i hit tab, it jumps around the GUI 01:47:56 I don't think every client does. 01:48:10 its just i don't know how to use the client 01:48:13 Maybe some have it optional or use different keys, too. 01:48:55 itidus20: you need to type in a name prefix first 01:49:18 Maybe you can use a macro if it would help better, I don't know... 01:49:19 oh i see 01:49:25 i have to use 3 characters 01:49:33 e l l tab 01:50:04 why didn't you just say ""ell" " 01:50:16 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: swatted to death). 01:50:27 Maybe "el" is ambiguous because "Elizacat" also has that prefix (and names are case insensitive in IRC) 01:50:41 i assumed i could get away with just typing 1 letter 01:50:45 like "e tab" 01:50:53 and i read "ell" as "L" 01:50:57 um e works for me 01:51:08 completes EgoBot, though 01:51:29 * elliott_ goes to Settings → Preferences → Input box → Nick Completion and changes sorting to last spoken 01:51:36 (in XChat) 01:51:42 you may want to check that configuration too, itidus20 01:51:56 -!- Lymee has joined. 01:52:17 What I do know, is, there is different tab completion, such as Windows and GNU have two different kind of tab completion. Windows completes the entire text and pushing tab again completes a different filename, with GNU it only completes the unambiguous part and then if you push again, it list all of them. 01:53:02 EgoBot: test 01:53:03 wow 01:53:09 gnarly 01:53:26 Elizacat: test2 01:53:35 itidus20: * elliott_ goes to Settings → Preferences → Input box → Nick Completion and changes sorting to last spoken 01:53:35 ;-) 01:53:43 then it'll always be me because i never shut up 01:53:49 I don't know if they can change tab completion option between Windows-style and GNU-style 01:54:12 Elizacat: last spoken humm 01:54:16 weird 01:54:35 go figure 01:55:04 EgoBot: test 01:55:09 elliott_: test 01:55:25 meh it'll do 01:55:29 its pretty good 01:56:02 maybe it doesn't actually start registering when people speak before you set the option 01:56:07 (wild theory) 01:56:21 its fine now 01:56:26 its good enough -- beter than be fore 01:59:01 -!- cheater_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 02:02:13 back 02:07:37 i think the neighbors dog is in hear 02:07:39 heat 02:07:47 my dogs freaking out again 02:08:00 rips the damn fence palings in 2 to see the neighbours dog 02:11:59 -!- cheater_ has joined. 02:13:11 -!- Nisstyre has quit (Quit: Leaving). 02:15:08 -!- Nisstyre has joined. 02:57:29 -!- derrik has joined. 03:07:44 -!- jcp|1 has joined. 03:08:26 -!- jcp has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds). 03:09:22 -!- jcp|other has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 03:13:51 -!- jcp has joined. 03:16:56 -!- azaq23 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 03:18:30 -!- jcp|other has joined. 03:18:57 -!- azaq23 has joined. 03:20:06 -!- jcp|1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 03:20:31 -!- jcp has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 03:20:42 -!- derrik has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 03:27:22 -!- jcp has joined. 03:33:02 -!- MSleep has joined. 03:34:16 -!- jcp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 03:35:01 -!- jcp|other has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 03:36:01 -!- jcp has joined. 03:41:21 -!- javawizard has joined. 04:01:56 hi 04:18:51 hi 04:18:53 why hi 04:19:28 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 04:20:25 bye 04:37:17 -!- TeruFSX has joined. 04:44:42 Oh I'm Good 04:44:49 oig 04:44:54 Randomly checked MSPA, there's an update 04:45:08 (Ok, so I'm not good, I've had a bunch of misses like that.) 04:45:13 (Is this like gambling?) 04:51:31 -!- TeruFSX has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 04:53:04 -!- TeruFSX has joined. 04:54:02 I may just give up on Chicken Scheme 04:54:48 What's wrong with the "there's an egg for that" Scheme? 04:56:11 nothing, Sgeo_ just always chickens out 04:56:39 * oerjan swats himself -----### 04:56:58 fizzie, I can't get eggs to install, and the fact that on the mailing list, a regular was unable to get the egg I wanted to install to install for himself, for a different reason, is not encouraging 04:57:03 And I didn't even need to groan. 04:57:17 Some of the eggs are a bit... rotten. 05:04:08 ^ul (fizzie: PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSH)S 05:04:08 fizzie: PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSH 05:04:09 elliott_: would the second statement you said allow for 0 or more instances of the " pc" of an acceptable size. :p 05:04:10 god dammit, fungot 05:04:11 elliott_: how would that work ( assuming you did everything right, which is deliminated by dollar signs. how can ( with a minimum amount of writing 05:07:16 -!- TeruFSX has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 05:19:18 *Aaaah*. 05:19:50 Having meaningful, pleasant IRL social interactions is a fairly nice feeling. 05:20:30 ^style 05:20:30 Available: agora alice c64 ct darwin discworld europarl ff7 fisher ic irc* jargon lovecraft nethack pa speeches ss wp youtube 05:23:37 pikhq, yay 05:33:47 for instance, pass a hash to a procedure directly 05:33:53 the keys and values get mixed up 05:33:53 wat is that 05:34:00 Sgeo_, the keys and values you set before you pass, are different inside what you pass it to 05:34:09 in other words foo = 1, bar = 2, could end up foo = 2, bar = 1 05:34:09 you *have* to pass it by reference 05:34:09 or you get that crap 05:34:12