Re: [fonc] Formation of Noctivagous, Inc.
Is it really hard to read? It's not. On Sep 21, 2013, at 1:43 PM, David Barbour wrote: I can't comment on the content because I couldn't read it. You are welcome to your self-defeating attitude AND the lint in your pocket. Good luck, Pratt. On Sep 21, 2013 10:59 AM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: Considering that you didn't even comment on what the website is before criticizing it, I don't give a fuck if your eyes bleed. On Sep 21, 2013, at 12:56 PM, David Barbour wrote: Can you change the font on that website? My eyes are bleeding. On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: In the process of learning programming to form Noctivagous, Inc. I came to question fundamental computing science, specifically how the programs are laid out. I am, however, interested in anyone who wishes to work on my newest project, 1draw33, which I announced first on the FONC list, in 2012. The website, if people are interested, is http://noctivagous.com ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Formation of Noctivagous, Inc.
In the process of learning programming to form Noctivagous, Inc. I came to question fundamental computing science, specifically how the programs are laid out. I am, however, interested in anyone who wishes to work on my newest project, 1draw33, which I announced first on the FONC list, in 2012. The website, if people are interested, is http://noctivagous.com ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Formation of Noctivagous, Inc.
Considering that you didn't even comment on what the website is before criticizing it, I don't give a fuck if your eyes bleed. On Sep 21, 2013, at 12:56 PM, David Barbour wrote: Can you change the font on that website? My eyes are bleeding. On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: In the process of learning programming to form Noctivagous, Inc. I came to question fundamental computing science, specifically how the programs are laid out. I am, however, interested in anyone who wishes to work on my newest project, 1draw33, which I announced first on the FONC list, in 2012. The website, if people are interested, is http://noctivagous.com ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not existing programming languages and paradigms. Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not your troubleshooting for your current job. Use the list for what it's said to be for. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 July 2013 16:22, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the suboptimal but conceptually simpler Occam's explanation? This is something the Erlang folk have said repeatedly for a long time now. They claim that upon crashing, the idea of backing off and trying something simpler is part of the Erlang way. However, I don't recall seeing any concrete support for this in OTP. The simpler idea of supervisors and hierarchical crashing-and-restarting larger and larger subunits of the system seems to be what's actually predominantly used. Tony -- Tony Garnock-Jones tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/ ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
Dick around with kids toys and make ugly crap, Kay. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Alan Kay wrote: This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc. Cheers, Alan From: Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often there's a hook to log the crash somewhere. I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the suboptimal but conceptually simpler Occam's explanation? All other things being equal, the simple implementation is usually more stable than the faster/less-RAM solution. Is anyone aware of research in this direction? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
Your list is utterly useless, you have no chance of doing anything. If there is no Steve Jobs, it is just kids toys and mamby pamby construvist learning bullshit. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Alan Kay wrote: This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc. Cheers, Alan From: Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often there's a hook to log the crash somewhere. I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the suboptimal but conceptually simpler Occam's explanation? All other things being equal, the simple implementation is usually more stable than the faster/less-RAM solution. Is anyone aware of research in this direction? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
I want to expose Alan Kay's cynicism in the statement you'll rule the world with the iPad This is actually his cynicism toward's Steve Jobs' will to power and is not well-intentioned. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Alan Kay wrote: This is how Smalltalk has always treated its primitives, etc. Cheers, Alan From: Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback Thought I had: when a program hits an unhandled exception, we crash, often there's a hook to log the crash somewhere. I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the suboptimal but conceptually simpler Occam's explanation? All other things being equal, the simple implementation is usually more stable than the faster/less-RAM solution. Is anyone aware of research in this direction? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback
It's true, I actually do things. On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Jason Ives wrote: John, I really don't think this list is for you. Jason On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:51 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that Alan Kay is a passive-aggressive twerp who can't reply directly to people. On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: Below. On Jul 30, 2013, at 2:49 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not your troubleshooting for your current job. My business card presently says Arranger Session Player, so there's no real threat of that right now:P Anyway I can get off topic at times, just like everyone else, and while I do think this inquiry was right on the money for the list, you've got every right to think it wasn't, so thanks for doing your part to keep the dialogue topical, John. --Casey Ransberger Arranger Session Player ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Layering, Thinking and Computing
I feel like these discussions are tangential to the larger issues brought up on FONC and just serve to indulge personal interest discussions. Aren't any of us interested in revolution? It won't start with digging into existing stuff like this. On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Tristan Slominski wrote: oops, I forgot to edit this part: and my criticism of Lightweight Time Warps had to do with that it is a protocol for message-driven simulation, which also needs an implementor that touches reality It should have read: and my criticism of Lightweight Time Warps had to do with that it is a protocol for message-driven simulation and (I think) actors are minimal implementors of message-driven protocols On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Tristan Slominski tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote: I had this long response drafted criticizing Bloom/CALM and Lightweight Time Warps, when I realized that we are probably again not aligned as to which meta level we're discussing. (my main criticism of Bloom/CALM was assumption of timesteps, which is an indicator of a meta-framework relying on something else to implement it within reality; and my criticism of Lightweight Time Warps had to do with that it is a protocol for message-driven simulation, which also needs an implementor that touches reality; synchronous reactive programming has the word synchronous in it) - hence my assertion that this is more meta level than actors. I think you and I personally care about different things. I want a computational model that is as close to how the Universe works as possible, with a minimalistic set of constructs from which everything else can be built. Hence my references to cellular automata and Wolfram's hobby of searching for the Universe. Anything which starts as synchronous cannot be minimalistic because that's not what we observe in the world, our world is asynchronous, and if we disagree on this axiom, then so much for that :D But actors model fails with regards to extensibility(*) and reasoning Those are concerns of an imperator, are they not? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm trying to highlight that our goals differ. But, without invasive code changes or some other form of cheating (e.g. global reflection) it can be difficult to obtain the name of an actor that is part of an actor configuration. Again, this is ignorance of the power of Object Capability and the Actor Model itself. The above is forbidden in the actor model unless the configuration explicitly sends you an address in the message. My earlier comment about Akka refers to this same mistake. However, you do bring up interesting meta-level reasoning complaints against the actor model. I'm not trying to dismiss them away or anything. As I mentioned before, that list is a good guide as to what meta-level programmers care about when writing programs. It would be great if actors could make it easier... and I'm probably starting to get lost here between the meta-levels again :/ Which brings me to a question. Am I the only one that loses track of which meta-level I'm reasoning or is this a common occurrence Bringing it back to the topic somewhat, how do people handle reasoning about all the different layers (meta-levels) when thinking about computing? On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Tristan Slominski tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's more of a pessimism about other models. [..] My non-pessimism about actors is linked to Wolfram's cellular automata turing machine [..] overwhelming consideration across all those hints is unbounded scalability. I'm confused. Why would you be pessimistic about non-actor models when your argument is essentially that very simple, deterministic, non-actor models can be both Turing complete and address unbounded scalability? Hmm. Perhaps what you're really arguing is pessimistic about procedural - which today is the mainstream paradigm of choice. The imperial nature of procedures makes it difficult to compose or integrate them in any extensional or collaborative manner - imperative works best when there is exactly one imperator (emperor). I can agree with that pessimism. In practice, the limits of scalability are very often limits of reasoning (too hard to reason about the interactions, safety, security, consistency, progress, process control, partial failure) or limits of extensibility (to inject or integrate new behaviors with existing systems requires invasive changes that are inconvenient or unauthorized). If either of those limits exist, scaling will stall. E.g. pure functional programming fails to scale for extensibility reasons, even though it admits a lot of natural parallelism. Of course, scalable performance is sometimes the issue, especially in models that have global
Re: [fonc] CodeSpells. Learn how to program Java by writing spells for a 3D environment.
Fine, but what does that have to do with setting the fundamentals of new computing? Is this just a mailing list for computer scientist to jerk off? On Apr 12, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Josh Grams wrote: On 2013-04-12 11:11AM, David Barbour wrote: I've occasionally contemplated developing such a game: program the behavior of your team of goblins (who may have different strengths, capabilities, and some behavioral habits/quirks) to get through a series of puzzles, with players building/managing a library as they go. Forth Warrior? :) https://github.com/JohnEarnest/Mako/tree/master/games/Warrior2 --Josh ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] FONC: The Fanboy Mailing List With No Productivity
This is just like open source software. A bunch of feelgood people hangin' out and messin' around, not ever doing anything, but pretending they are getting somewhere by indulging themselves. No one on here is probably working on the Fundamentals of New Computing. This is just a trash bin for people who don't want to do anything. The real work is probably on noise-free mailing list. This is the fanboy list for Alan Kay. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Statement of Posting on Fonc
It doesn't matter that I am inexperienced in the annals of computer science because the reason why I wrote on this mailing list in the first place is that I share a similar, albeit smaller, experience as Alan Kay setting the conceptual foundation for an industry and then watching people, ignorant of it, start hitting walls because they are only concerned with the direct gains they can glean from the concept rather than its underpinnings as well. In this case, it was smaller than an entire world of computers-- it was just a concept for all-or-nothing collection, by way of collective action. It is also called other names, but the general idea is that people set a goal and if everyone agrees to participate, their participation token (money) is taken from them; if not everyone agrees to participate, their participation never takes place and the token evaporates or is returned to them. At the time we started this, there were certainly people who had thought of it before, but no one had put it into practice or worked out all of the practical realities. It also was founded as a result of studying political science, not playing around with web pages and web programming, strictly speaking. Yet, people today believe that just having the concept and then buying a book on web programming is what allowed us to establish the foundation for an entire Internet phenomenon, for which we get little or no credit (or money, if you are interested in that!). In fact, it took a unique set of backgrounds, unlike those who wish to become the next Facebook. So I am sympathetic to Alan Kay on a number of levels, and while I would never equate myself professionally or academically in terms of university position, I do understand the experience he has gone through more than almost anyone. I also know, more than most, what it is like to witness an entire environment that is totally empty of the concept you are trying to implement, and then just a few short years later witnessing its emergence across the world, to my personal astonishment. It is why I am so confident that people will practice Falun Dafa even though I am one of the first people in the United States to recognize this. I have seen an entire environment go from voidspace on top of the foundation I started, to a total flourishing of what people now deem crowdfunding. But like Kay, I am not mentioned very often, if at all on this topic, even though I drove it. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Send Science to the Landfill
What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to show up on a laboratory microscope. The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as fitting inside a petri dish. We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it inside of its petri dish. Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we will go study it. Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to man by this modern science. Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's demand for novelty and excitement. Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine circuitry-- engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good at it in high school. If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the details are explained of its operation. That'll do the trick. I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, or four axes, thank you very much. I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of deterministic, reductionist functions. Oh, then you are just tired of 'discreteness' and you need its polar opposite of discreteness, non-discreteness. Such is mathematics and science today. Why does no one want to learn math and science anymore??___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Send Science to the Landfill
I want a response from Alan Kay on this thread. Then I will leave you all alone. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Harris wrote: What are you on about? How is this related to FONC? David On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to show up on a laboratory microscope. The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as fitting inside a petri dish. We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it inside of its petri dish. Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we will go study it. Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to man by this modern science. Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's demand for novelty and excitement. Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine circuitry-- engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good at it in high school. If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the details are explained of its operation. That'll do the trick. I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, or four axes, thank you very much. I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of deterministic, reductionist functions. Oh, then you are just tired of 'discreteness' and you need its polar opposite of discreteness, non-discreteness. Such is mathematics and science today. Why does no one want to learn math and science anymore?? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Send Science to the Landfill
These are larger issues, rarely brought up anywhere except in places where people don't counter the mainstream. How is it that FONC needs to exist? Because people don't consider things like this. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:27 PM, David Leibs wrote: Are you sure you don't want a response from me? Are you trying to put Alan in a petri dish? -David Leibs On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:23 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: I want a response from Alan Kay on this thread. Then I will leave you all alone. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Harris wrote: What are you on about? How is this related to FONC? David On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to show up on a laboratory microscope. The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as fitting inside a petri dish. We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it inside of its petri dish. Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we will go study it. Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to man by this modern science. Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's demand for novelty and excitement. Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine circuitry-- engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good at it in high school. If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the details are explained of its operation. That'll do the trick. I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, or four axes, thank you very much. I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of deterministic, reductionist functions. Oh, then you are just tired of 'discreteness' and you need its polar opposite of discreteness, non-discreteness. Such is mathematics and science today. Why does no one want to learn math and science anymore?? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Send Science to the Landfill
Science cannot believe X because scientific theorem A1 says... Here is what I know: the theorem of atoms was ascertained without Godel. It was done in ancient Greece. On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:03 PM, John Carlson wrote: John, The FONC grant is done. Let it be. Please leave your email behavior at the door. As to why science cannot believe in such things is because of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Science doesn't have an axiom for it like it does for a point (in math). Find the most succinct axiom you can find, and bring it to us. Here are two that could be improved: Something doesn't come from nothing. Complexity doesn't increase. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: These are larger issues, rarely brought up anywhere except in places where people don't counter the mainstream. How is it that FONC needs to exist? Because people don't consider things like this. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:27 PM, David Leibs wrote: Are you sure you don't want a response from me? Are you trying to put Alan in a petri dish? -David Leibs On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:23 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: I want a response from Alan Kay on this thread. Then I will leave you all alone. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Harris wrote: What are you on about? How is this related to FONC? David On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to show up on a laboratory microscope. The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as fitting inside a petri dish. We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it inside of its petri dish. Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we will go study it. Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to man by this modern science. Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's demand for novelty and excitement. Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine circuitry-- engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good at it in high school. If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the details are explained of its operation. That'll do the trick. I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, or four axes, thank you very much. I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of deterministic, reductionist functions. Oh, then you are just tired of 'discreteness' and you need its polar opposite of discreteness, non-discreteness. Such is mathematics and science today. Why does no one want to learn math and science anymore?? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo
Re: [fonc] Send Science to the Landfill
Ugly buildings. It's all yours. You can have it. On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: sarcasm But don't you understand? Falun Dafa is the new answer-for-it-all! /sarcasm When will people simply address their fears? We *are* going to die. Julian On 30/12/2012, at 11:08 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I use it too much. What I was trying to say was that science doesn't have an axiom for Falun Dafa, like science has for a point. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: John, The FONC grant is done. Let it be. Please leave your email behavior at the door. As to why science cannot believe in such things is because of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Science doesn't have an axiom for it like it does for a point (in math). Find the most succinct axiom you can find, and bring it to us. Here are two that could be improved: Something doesn't come from nothing. Complexity doesn't increase. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: These are larger issues, rarely brought up anywhere except in places where people don't counter the mainstream. How is it that FONC needs to exist? Because people don't consider things like this. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:27 PM, David Leibs wrote: Are you sure you don't want a response from me? Are you trying to put Alan in a petri dish? -David Leibs On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:23 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: I want a response from Alan Kay on this thread. Then I will leave you all alone. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Harris wrote: What are you on about? How is this related to FONC? David On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to show up on a laboratory microscope. The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as fitting inside a petri dish. We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it inside of its petri dish. Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we will go study it. Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to man by this modern science. Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's demand for novelty and excitement. Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine circuitry-- engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good at it in high school. If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the details are explained of its operation. That'll do the trick. I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, or four axes, thank you very much. I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of deterministic, reductionist functions. Oh, then you are just tired of 'discreteness' and you need its polar opposite of discreteness, non-discreteness. Such is mathematics and science today. Why does no one want to learn math and science anymore?? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Send Science to the Landfill
At best, people can get into nerd debates on Slashdot about such things. Aside from that, I think about so-called belief systems and whatever phenomena independent of the people who supposedly have all the answers, like professors and their 4 textbooks, many of which are just codified knowledge. I have already discussed Falun Dafa in a previous thread, but since you keep bringing it up, I'll explain it again: Falun Dafa is not a belief system. There are no rituals or beliefs and that is why I asked all of you to actually read the book. On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:23 PM, John Carlson wrote: John, check out Munchhausen's Trilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma as to why belief systems as are they are. Everyone has a belief system, including scientists, engineers,and mathematicians. Nothing is firm, including Falun Dafa. Enjoy the mystery of everything, including math, science and engineering. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: Science cannot believe X because scientific theorem A1 says... Here is what I know: the theorem of atoms was ascertained without Godel. It was done in ancient Greece. On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:03 PM, John Carlson wrote: John, The FONC grant is done. Let it be. Please leave your email behavior at the door. As to why science cannot believe in such things is because of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Science doesn't have an axiom for it like it does for a point (in math). Find the most succinct axiom you can find, and bring it to us. Here are two that could be improved: Something doesn't come from nothing. Complexity doesn't increase. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: These are larger issues, rarely brought up anywhere except in places where people don't counter the mainstream. How is it that FONC needs to exist? Because people don't consider things like this. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:27 PM, David Leibs wrote: Are you sure you don't want a response from me? Are you trying to put Alan in a petri dish? -David Leibs On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:23 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: I want a response from Alan Kay on this thread. Then I will leave you all alone. On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Harris wrote: What are you on about? How is this related to FONC? David On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote: What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to show up on a laboratory microscope. The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as fitting inside a petri dish. We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it inside of its petri dish. Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we will go study it. Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to man by this modern science. Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's demand for novelty and excitement. Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine circuitry-- engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good at it in high school. If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the details are explained of its operation. That'll do the trick. I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, or four axes, thank you very much. I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of deterministic, reductionist functions. Oh, then you are just tired of 'discreteness
Re: [fonc] Falun Dafa
Read Zhuan Falun On Dec 23, 2012, at 9:25 AM, John Carlson wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:37 AM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/22/2012 9:11 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: I think you've missed the point. The point is... you need to use your body and your emotions as well as your mind. Our society is overly focussed on the mind. could be, fair enough... The point is, if you don't use your body and emotions, they'll be sure to let you know. Perhaps in 15 years or so. Check out half-life of an IT worker, relevant post on /.: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/03/1435217/half-life-of-a-tech-worker-15-years ... The mind is co-dependent on the emotions and body, not independent. John ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Falun Dafa
Respectfully, go read Zhuan Falun and then comment on this thread. On Dec 23, 2012, at 1:02 PM, BGB wrote: On 12/23/2012 11:25 AM, John Carlson wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:37 AM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/22/2012 9:11 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: I think you've missed the point. The point is... you need to use your body and your emotions as well as your mind. Our society is overly focussed on the mind. could be, fair enough... The point is, if you don't use your body and emotions, they'll be sure to let you know. Perhaps in 15 years or so. Check out half-life of an IT worker, relevant post on /.: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/03/1435217/half-life-of-a-tech-worker-15-years ... The mind is co-dependent on the emotions and body, not independent. well, except I am already late 20s (will be 29 in a matter of days), and by this point arguably already using dated technologies. (but, the usual catch up is absurd, as most of these new technologies end up largely forgotten in a few years anyways, while the older technologies remain in full force...). IOW: mostly still using C, as Java is still lame, and C# still isn't very good on non-Windows targets (as many of the advantages it has on Windows, cease to exist on VM's like Mono). but, seriously, what is the point of playing catch-up? or taking C# seriously as a tool for much more than quick/dirty GUI apps and writing Paint.NET plugins and similar?... biggest thing I have written in C# thus far was a codec for a custom JPEG-based image format (it is like JPEG but added more features, *1), and mostly in the form of a Paint.NET plugin. in many ways, C# is much less well-suited to this sort of thing than C is (for example, for the image codec, I have both C and C# versions). *1: alpha-channels, expanded components (normal, luma, depth, ...), layers, lossless encoding, some additional transforms and filters (can help improve compression), ... basically, ended up bolting on some block-filters derived from those in PNG as well, which can help compress things better when dealing with certain types of images (flat colors and gradiants, or blocks containing sharp edges). it is, however, not strictly backwards-compatible with existing JPEG decoders (depending on which features are enabled). when the alternate filters are enabled, it also uses a different entropy-coding / VLC scheme. now, back in time, my early/mid 20s were a time of strongish and more poorly controlled emotions, and I put a lot of time and effort mostly in getting things mostly under control (such that being upset about something need not interfere with my external behavior or ability to complete tasks). (like, say, if a person is upset about something, it interferes with them writing code or working things, ...). after a while though, a person largely stops feeling upset about things. granted, there is always a risk of them coming back in some more aggressive form (or, occasionally, playing tricks, and bypassing its usual sandbox). granted, there is still the issue of memory-retrieval, where emotions can apparently interfere with the types of memories that are brought up (so, emotions are sort of like a cat that keeps getting up on the keyboard when it wants something, and one usually wants the cat to not be on the keyboard). sometimes it is necessary to get involved and try to stabilize them though, because otherwise emotions can go into a sort of feedback loop, resulting in adverse psychological and behavioral effects (often: conscious fragmentation, *2, partial loss of sensory input, reduced ability to move, ...), but things will usually return to normal once emotions burn themselves out and dissipate (I think the last time this happened was ~ 5 years ago though). *2: this state is a bit complicated to describe. I am left to realize that I don't really want to describe it, nor is it probably really topical here anyways. as-is, lacking a job, I am mostly trying to make it on my own, admittedly without a whole lot of success thus far. as for the future, I don't really know... John ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Falun Dafa
As far as I am concerned, this is what programmers need because I found that the programming languages out there are incoherent and chaotic, no matter which ones they are. Underlying all computer machinery is a hodgepodge of accretion. Concepts lodged inside concepts for expediency. This is something I think Alan understands quite well, far more than me. But more importantly, I found out that they stir up irritability; when you can't get something to work right, it creates a hum of irritability around you that has to dissipate over the rest of the day because programming provides such instantaneous feedback to your every move; nowadays you can see if what you are doing works in just seconds, whereas you had to wait much longer; so consequently, people who program computers are often known for being irritable and impatient. If you are one of those people, investigate this practice. On Dec 23, 2012, at 4:53 PM, John Carlson wrote: There's something in your early/mid 20s. There's also stuff in your 40s too. Live life gracefully, don't run into brick walls. Perhaps there's nothing to do but experience it. Each person has their own path. John On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 3:02 PM, BGB cr88...@gmail.com wrote: now, back in time, my early/mid 20s were a time of strongish and more poorly controlled emotions, and I put a lot of time and effort mostly in getting things mostly under control (such that being upset about something need not interfere with my external behavior or ability to complete tasks). (like, say, if a person is upset about something, it interferes with them writing code or working things, ...). ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Not just clear of mind
Children will eat ice cream for breakfast if you don't stop them. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Discordant
Steve Jobs sitting at an interview table in 1995, with high-quality computers that don't sell. Alan Kay, a research scientist whose work underlies much of the modern world, fighting for attention at the end of a lecture series in 2011. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] The problem with programming languages
The problem with programming languages and computers in general is that they hijack existing human concepts and words, usurping them from everyday usage and flattening out their meanings. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Calming the Frenzy
I think that everyone, myself included, has succumbed to the technology frenzy. This is really something that people might want to address. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLsQmPjQ33wfeature=related ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
