00:02:07 <Arnia> .title http://www.ruggedpcreview.com/3_handhelds_lxe_hx3.html
00:02:08 <phenny> Arnia: Rugged PC Review.com - Handhelds and PDAs: LXE HX3
00:05:16 <Arnia> And, for a wonderful example of the cyborg style; http://www.yellomosquito.com/
00:05:39 <kpreid> BUG EYES!
00:07:03 <Arnia> Yep
00:11:02 <Arnia> For more about the toolkit the EyeTap is supposed to use, see http://openvidia.sourceforge.net/features.shtml
00:11:32 *** kwijibo has quit ()
00:13:42 <Arnia> ooh, this brings up an interesting thought for interaction
00:14:18 <kpreid> "A computer vision machine with 6 PCI graphics cards, and 1 AGP graphics card. Each PCI card has a GeForce FX 5200 GPU which runs pattern recognition and computer vision tasks in parallel. "
00:14:50 <kpreid> not gonna wear that
00:15:13 <Arnia> No
00:16:28 <kpreid> Anyway, what's the interaction thought
00:16:29 <kpreid> ?
00:17:53 <Arnia> Self-perception gesture recognition. Rather than using a camera external to a person to track their gestures, you watch things from their point of view and recognise deitic communication that way
00:17:58 <Arnia> A bit of a cheat, but hey
00:18:33 <Arnia> Won't work in every situation either, but people do tend to watch what they're doing even if it is only in their peripheral. Of course something like the EyeTap can include the peripheral
00:19:17 <Arnia> Oh, and the parallel graphics card system is described by them as 'dated' and a parallelism test
00:19:40 <kpreid> http://openvidia.org/cannylocal.mpg (<- http://openvidia.sourceforge.net/screenshots.shtml ) has sort of that tracking stability visualization I wanted
00:19:47 <kpreid> hard to view though, the lines are too subtle
00:20:25 <Arnia> http://openvidia.org/ransac.mpg ?
00:21:08 <kpreid> Nah
00:21:35 *** tro (i=trotek@k.thnx.org) has joined #swhack
00:21:48 <kpreid> Inter-frame lines demonstrate that the thing has connectivity, rather than just similar results for similar images. Oh, wait, that is that too.
00:21:53 <kpreid> It's ust kind of hard to see.
00:22:05 <kpreid> Too many points (heh), small video, slow motion
00:38:57 *** jeffarch has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
00:43:26 <Arnia> Yay, YouTube comments :p
00:43:27 <Arnia> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_MAtjOlRqE&feature=related
00:43:31 <Arnia> .title
00:43:32 <phenny> Arnia: YouTube - A multi-touch display that can 'see' objects too
00:43:47 *** MoiraA has quit (Remote closed the connection)
00:44:23 <Arnia> I don't think they appreciate the significance of a company the size of Microsoft investigating multi-touch interaction metaphors, and building an active multi-touch display into a normal laptop
00:45:03 <Arnia> I must say I'm glad that they realise now that mouse-emulation is a poor use of the technology
00:45:28 *** MoiraA (i=moira@gateway/tor/x-eb2fab7b07103138) has joined #swhack
00:45:28 <Monty> it's MoiraA!
00:48:01 *** bct has parted #swhack ()
01:00:57 <kpreid> I wish that when viewing a YouTube video there was a button which left me with a window with just the video and no context-branding-comments stuff
01:01:49 <aspect> that' what platypus is for
01:26:24 *** coax has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
01:26:33 *** coax (i=exis3@ti221110a080-5766.bb.online.no) has joined #swhack
01:29:16 *** jeffarch (n=jja@pdpc/supporter/active/jeffarch) has joined #swhack
09:30:59 *** loggy (i=sbp@66.9.179.67) has joined #swhack
09:30:59 <kornbluth.freenode.net> Topic for #swhack is: Eric Tiedemann → Swhack at Half-Topicmast → ☹ | Swhack: Must be proficient in number theory, familiar with Machiavelli, and own the complete boxed set of 'The West Wing'.
09:30:59 <kornbluth.freenode.net> Users on #swhack: loggy +sbp chris2 shepazu leobard cre8radix|off br tonybaloney867 phenny pwaring sbp2002 JibbyBot aspect xavier beobal radii Tene dahut clsn selggig zachb trotek Jonashdsf realist xover jsled Monty Morbus swhacker Mike_L procto Lumiere bancus Louie` earle plum tobbez chandler +deltab dmiles_afk TedThibodeauJr cskaterun +nslater edsu sr ido Pierre eel swhask +lisppaste2 Xanthor +kpreid jlaiv maxkelley CaptSolo +Arnia tro +MoiraA
09:31:12 <sbp> .gcs periuranion apouranion periposeidion apoposeidion perihadion apohadion
09:31:15 <phenny> perihadion (753), periuranion (752), apoposeidion (714), periposeidion (698), apohadion (633), apouranion (562)
09:41:06 *** tonybaloney867 has quit (Remote closed the connection)
09:49:07 <sbp> .c 1 / phi
09:49:07 <phenny> 1 / the golden ratio = 0.618033989
09:49:16 <sbp> .c 365 * (1 / phi)
09:49:17 <phenny> 365 * (1 / the golden ratio) = 225.582406
09:50:36 <sbp> .c 365 * (1 - (1 / phi))
09:50:37 <phenny> 365 * (1 - (1 / phi)) = 139.417594
10:04:01 <sbp> .wik Water-based Pokemon Appreciation Day
10:04:04 <phenny> "October 11 is the 284th day of the year (285th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_11
10:04:10 <sbp> ...
10:07:16 *** br has quit ("leaving")
10:15:37 <sbp> quiet today
10:24:29 <kpreid> Mike_L: I'd call that an introducer
11:00:29 *** chris2 has quit ("Leaving")
11:04:21 <sbp> a study mentioned on BBC News just now shows that bad teaching can cause worse grades
11:04:40 <sbp> they should do a study on whether stupid studies are a waste of money next
11:05:31 <kpreid> sbp: vaguely related: http://paulspontifications.blogspot.com/2008/05/under-appreciated-fact-we-dont-know-how.html
11:15:31 <sbp> ‘And yet in every one of these processes and diagrams there is a box which basically says "write the code", and ought to be subtitled "(and here a miracle occurs)".’
11:16:35 <sbp> mmm
11:17:21 <sbp> I don't think he's right. I know how I program
11:18:06 <sbp> I will take http://inamidst.com/proj/put/put.py as an example
11:18:09 <sbp> (one of my favourite bits of code)
11:18:15 <kpreid> but can you teach it? :-)
11:18:21 <sbp> yes, I think I could
11:18:33 <sbp> the problem in put.py is to implement HTTP PUT, right?
11:18:34 <Monty> Misplaced?
11:18:42 <sbp> not misplaced. put
11:18:59 <sbp> so normally I start with all the administrative crap
11:19:05 *** sysfault (i=exalted@p3m/member/sysfault) has joined #swhack
11:19:12 *** sysfault has quit (Success)
11:19:13 <sbp> command line parsing, the main() function, importing modules
11:19:28 <sbp> usually I only add modules which I think I'm going to use, but sometimes I guess
11:19:40 <sbp> the main() function follows a standard formula
11:20:06 <sbp> parse the command line, give errors if the command line is wrong, and then send all the bits to some higher function if everything is okay
11:20:38 <sbp> the design of the parser depends on the function of the program. for each option the program is designed to have, there will be an option flag. etc. it's all pretty straightorward, no magic "miracles occur here" so far
11:21:22 <sbp> error conditions that you have to think of basically encompass What Would Be Bad. so the URI starting with anything other than http: for example, would be bad, since this is an HTTP only program
11:21:29 *** sysfault (n=exalted@p3m/member/sysfault) has joined #swhack
11:21:42 <sbp> so what you're doing is looking to constrain the input to the minimal possible semantically valid input, and reject all others
11:21:50 <sbp> (otherwise you'll get unexpected behaviours)
11:21:57 <sbp> it's also nice to print out an error message for the user
11:22:04 <sbp> okay, so then the actual putting
11:22:24 <sbp> the structure of this is dictated by the design of HTTP
11:22:31 <sbp> in HTTP, you send a request, and you get a response
11:22:52 <sbp> we're sending a PUT. we might get a response which says "okay", or we might get one saying "do someting else", or we may get one saying "fail"
11:23:04 <sbp> this is enumerated in the HTTP specification. still no magic, no guessing
11:23:18 *** sysfault has quit (Client Quit)
11:23:20 <sbp> the design is a function of the specifications of the protocols involved; their design
11:23:30 <sbp> so, what I did here was to get it to loop
11:23:33 <sbp> using while
11:23:39 *** sysfault (n=exalted@p3m/member/sysfault) has joined #swhack
11:23:42 <sbp> if it says okay or fail, we exit the loop
11:23:50 <sbp> (and return a program status, 0 or 1)
11:24:00 <sbp> if it says we need something else, we continue to loop
11:24:45 <sbp> I put in a barrier on the amount of looping that can go on, but this could have been an option, or some other default could have been chosen. there's still no magic here: it was just personal preference that I'm sure I could defend in a paragraph or two
11:25:03 <sbp> so, in the while loop, first I try to send the data
11:25:33 <sbp> this just uses the PUT junk in python's standard library, so that's all quite normally dictated. in other words, anybody else approaching the problem would probably make very similar code here; not much room for choice
11:25:48 <sbp> then we get a response back, and it comes down to that choice thing
11:25:57 <sbp> the most difficult part is if it asks us to authenticate
11:26:12 <sbp> that's probably the most "magic" part of the code
11:26:16 <sbp> so let's look at that
11:26:24 <kpreid> I have this feeling that you're missing the point. But I don't know how to put it right
11:26:41 <sbp> I don't think so. I mean, it said "magic goes here"
11:26:51 <sbp> but I'm not doing this by osmosical observations
11:27:03 <sbp> each step of the programming endeavour is dictated by very obvious points
11:27:16 <sbp> such as the design of a protocol, or the design of a standard library, or the kind of use required
11:27:37 <sbp> where there are choices, which are normally obvious, you employ your best judgement. is it the judgement that is considered magic?
11:27:49 <sbp> where there are choices which aren't obvious, this is normally a choice in the level of use
11:28:01 <sbp> and that's at the level of things which can be solved at the requirements stage and blah blah
11:28:08 <sbp> or the drawing boxes stage
11:28:15 <sbp> I think my essential point is this:
11:28:28 <sbp> Paul says that programming has process, which consists of drawing boxes
11:28:38 <sbp> and each box links to some other box, or has another box inside it
11:28:55 <sbp> but then he says that at some point there is always a box with "write code here", which basically means "magic happens"
11:28:58 <sbp> but that's not true
11:29:31 <sbp> what that point actually represents is the point where the planning is no longer high level
11:29:42 <sbp> that is, if you wrote any *smaller* boxes than that, you'd basically be programming
11:29:46 <sbp> so at that point you program
11:29:58 <sbp> what I was intending to show with my analysis of put.py is that the boxes process then *carries on*
11:30:09 <kpreid> hm.
11:30:20 <sbp> the high level design of a program is part of a *continuum* whose other side is the actually nitty gritty line-by-line programming
11:30:25 <sbp> the boxes just get smaller and smaller
11:30:35 <sbp> until you get to a function call, or a string, or some other atom
11:30:38 <kpreid> but consider this hypothesis: (not that I wish to assert it, quite)
11:30:50 <kpreid> that *only a good programmer can know which boxes to put down*
11:31:29 <sbp> on the flip side of that you could say that only a good software engineer knows which high level boxes to put down, whereas only a good programmer knows what low level boxes to put down
11:32:01 <sbp> I don't dispute that there is a difference in skillsets from high level code arrangement and the nitty gritty function-call low level programming activity
11:32:26 <sbp> but as you go from higher to lower, the kinds of skills required change gradually
11:32:38 <sbp> there isn't a place where you can point to and go "ah! it's different now"
11:32:49 <sbp> it's all fuzzy 'n' shit in the middle
11:33:23 <sbp> certainly, it feels very similar, if not quite identical, to be planning how a function like put.putfile() works to how something like the Trio API works
11:33:35 <sbp> you're breaking it down into components
11:33:49 <sbp> the main differences are that on the high level, the requirements are dictated by the user, and by general human intent
11:34:02 <sbp> at the lower level, the requirements tend to be bound to algorithms, protocols, and standard libraries
11:34:10 <sbp> as well as the syntax of the language of course
11:35:21 <sbp> I should also note that I rather liked Paul's thesis because it made me think of possible connections between writing code and the artistic creative process, which is what I've been thinking a lot about recently
11:35:58 <sbp> and I suspect that he might be trying to draw some parallel there himself. in the world of art, the concept of inspiration as a kind of externally given revelation is well attested throughout history
11:36:31 <sbp> by Paul saying "magic happens here!" he seems to be saying the same thing: that programming is art, and that there's a point where craft gives way to something which ineffable, mysterious, and strange
11:36:59 <sbp> the difference is that Paul's saying he can pin down with some accuracy where that happens. that when you write a few lines of code, that's doing magic. but that designing a piece of software on the high level is not magic
11:37:43 <sbp> and I think that's pretty shortsighted if that's true, because I think that there can be just as much art in high level program design as there is in low level program design! possibly more so because the kinds of constraints, as I pointed out, are more human at the higher level and more mechanical at the lower level
11:39:04 *** TedThibodeauJr has quit ()
11:39:08 * Arnia is thinking
11:39:34 <sbp> Monday Morning Programming Æsthetics Debate, here on Swhack!
11:39:43 <sbp> oh, Monday Afternoon
11:42:25 * Arnia is thinking about pervasive information systems more
11:42:29 <Arnia> But there you go :)
11:42:32 <sbp> heh
11:42:50 <sbp> I can ramble on about teaching magic-box programming more if anyone cares
11:45:43 <sbp> hmm, computed styles from https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/webdevel.html isn't working
11:45:44 <sbp> how annoying
11:45:48 <sbp> ANNOYITATING
11:50:31 <Morbus> rowr
11:52:56 <aspect> wow, I assumed you were talking about Paul G
11:53:19 * aspect flags that essay to read after boston legal's over
11:59:40 <aspect> it reminds me of the way we learn language
12:07:23 * sbp sends a quick note to the Milton Reading Room: ‘The footnote to Winter's Tale 4.3.143, against "pale Primrose" in Song On May Morning [1], should read Winter's Tale 4.*4*.143. Both the link text and the hyperlink itself need correcting.’
12:09:28 <Arnia> aspect: the way we learn language, according to whom?
12:10:11 <sbp> and reminds you of it how?
12:10:22 <aspect> Arnia: according to my ill-defined and fuzzy subjective interpretation of my own experience
12:11:01 <Arnia> Humans are generally shit introspectors
12:12:22 <Arnia> And also, first language learning is very different to second language learning. Can you really remember the language learning process for first language?
12:12:22 <aspect> well yes, but that's kind of the point
12:12:58 <Arnia> (since the bulk of it appears to be done in the first 12 to 24 months, I'm impressed if you can)
12:13:20 <aspect> I can form gramatically pleasing english sentences without reference to grammar, perhaps due to a sense of aesthetic carried out from immersion
12:13:30 <Arnia> …
12:13:48 <Arnia> That sounds like a mischaracterisation of what 'grammar' is
12:14:19 * Arnia brands aspect with the phrase 'prescriptivist-by-default'
12:14:34 *** sysfault has quit ("Leaving")
12:15:29 <aspect> this is more ranting and mysticism than anything that would withstand philosophical assault, so I'm not really sure if there's a useful conversation here :-)
12:17:57 <Arnia> Right. I'm doing a consciousness transfer from my house to my local. I'll speak to you once I come through the other side
12:18:44 <aspect> enjoy. I'm sipping whiskey with you in spirit
12:20:14 *** Arnia has quit ()
12:31:07 *** kwijibo (n=kwijibo@86.47.129.77) has joined #swhack
12:33:15 <sbp> aspect: I was thinking yesterday about how mystic traditions associated with science are now faintly ridiculous, but somehow manage to hold a certain artistic quality still
12:36:32 <sbp> excellent, the Milton Reading Room typo has been fixed already
12:36:35 <sbp> pretty quick
12:40:21 <aspect> the modern tradition makes mysicism unacceptable, much to its own detriment
12:40:57 * aspect disclaims: unqualified assertions are where it's at. deal with it.
12:41:05 <sbp> hmm
12:41:19 <sbp> hey, I'm not Arnia. I won't beat you to a bloody philosophical pulp :-)
12:41:27 <sbp> not as quickly, anyway
12:41:41 <sbp> I was just pondering whether I broadly agree or not
12:41:52 * clsn draws three or four Devanagari conjuncts in Marin before settling down to Actual Work.
12:42:12 <sbp> and got sidetracked thinking about how modern mysticism in the form of "spiritualism" probably did more detriment than any accusations labelled at mysticism by rationalists
12:42:52 <sbp> I mean, in most bookshops these days (as good a descriptive ontology of current thought as any), most mysticism books are right in there with the self-help stuff
12:42:56 <sbp> which is awful
12:43:35 <aspect> my pet peeve is dogmatic rationalists giving everything a bad name
12:43:50 <clsn> I ought to get MOST devanagari done before releasing the new version I think.
12:43:53 <sbp> what has tended to happen since the renaissance is that we have periods of rationality and then periods of emotionality/mysticality/romanticism etc.
12:43:56 <aspect> "dogmatic rationalist" might not be the best term. I tend to call them "scientismists"
12:44:12 <sbp> I mean, we have periods like the Enlightenment followed by the period of Romanticism. that's probably the best example
12:44:41 <sbp> though I realised just the other week that there are more complicated examples, such as the rationalist Victorian era that yet had a strong emphasis on the past and folklore etc.
12:44:45 <aspect> will we eventually find a happy compromise that permits both, or is this the eternal condition?
12:45:09 <sbp> which then kinda split off as technological advance in the 20th century and modernism tempered by things like Theosophy and whatnot
12:45:22 <sbp> aspect: well, the point I'm slowly building up to is...
12:45:23 <aspect> (sorry I'm only half paying attention to what you're saying, because godshatesfags.com is on tv and .. it's like a train wreck)
12:45:38 <sbp> I wonder if this rationalist period we're in now will subside to a more romantically tempered one
12:47:39 <sbp> also, I guess dogmatic rationalism is just hypocrisy, with a fancier (well, more specific) name
12:47:50 <sbp> because rationalism by its own rules can't be dogmatic
12:48:15 <aspect> absolutely, but it's rife
12:48:48 <sbp> radicalism breeds radicalism
12:49:00 <sbp> it's likely to get worse the more the fundamentalists pump out their stuff
12:49:21 <aspect> and vice-versa
12:50:12 <aspect> I participated in a quite lengthy debate about creationism vs intelligent design on the uni newsgroups ... it was quite distressing how neither side could accept the other's viewpoint as a philosophically valid interpretation of data their own model couldn't prove anything about
12:50:42 <sbp> ...creationism vs. intelligent design?
12:50:47 <aspect> really, it was a troll-fest, but most of them didn't know they were trolling by saying "your belief in X is irrational and faith-based, because I am right"
12:50:50 <aspect> err
12:50:53 <aspect> thinko :-)
12:51:02 <aspect> I meant evolution vs intelligent design
12:51:14 <sbp> creationism vs. intelligent design would be a fun debate
12:52:29 <sbp> I'm not sure what you mean by philosophically valid
12:53:01 <sbp> I put intelligent design into the same file as Shakespeare Alternative Authorship stuff
12:53:27 <aspect> why so?
12:54:02 <sbp> well the mechanism behind both seems pretty much the same
12:54:16 <sbp> cultural and psychological bias leading to misinterpretation of data
12:54:21 *** Arnia (n=jgeldart@0-16-cb-bd-57-e.it.wlan.dur.ac.uk) has joined #swhack
12:54:43 *** mahound (n=mahound@134.235.54.77.rev.vodafone.pt) has joined #swhack
12:54:46 <clsn> Years ago I joined some hi-IQ societies (working through a little inferiority). I was on the mailing list of one for a while. I was amazed to discover that high intelligence is absolutely no barrier to being an idiot. Some of the dumbest arguments there...
12:55:04 *** mahound has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
12:55:18 <clsn> The religionists-vs-atheists one went on forever there, but a lot of it wasn't even about the actual point.
12:55:27 <sbp> yeah, well, anybody who rates intelligence on a single dimension transitive scale obviously ought to be placed at the lower end of it...
12:55:28 <aspect> and you assume your cultural and psychological bias is less crippling? but that's really another issue
12:55:37 <clsn> A lot of time the atheists were just saying "well, we're the null hypothesis, so we don't have to prove anything..."
12:56:05 <sbp> aspect: yes, because what would be the grounds of the bias?
12:56:19 <clsn> The single-dimension IQ score I think is not completely worthless, but not all that crucial either.
12:56:19 <sbp> the grounds of the biases in the case of ID and SAA are easy to point to
12:56:24 <sbp> you can see what axe is being ground
12:56:30 <sbp> for the alternatives, it's not so clear
12:56:42 <sbp> so you'd expect there to be a lower probability of bias
12:57:24 <aspect> easy for _you_ to point out. If you could project yourself onto the other side of the fence things might be different
12:57:40 <clsn> Ran across a blog entry a week ago or so talking about how an ID-proponent turned out to be actually an excellent argument for *recalling* an ID textbook.
12:58:03 *** jeffarch (n=jja@pdpc/supporter/active/jeffarch) has joined #swhack
12:58:13 <clsn> Because his argument was "scientific inquiry, all points of view..." and yet the textbook was pretty clear that ID had only *one* right point of view.
12:58:25 <Arnia> I still get annoyed by the hijacking of the term Intelligent Design
12:58:31 <aspect> I think there's a valid worldview buried underneath intelligent design rhetoric somewhere. Just because something is labelled "God" doesn't make it irrational -- science is perfectly good at proving the existence of the unprovable
12:58:42 <Arnia> It used to mean extra-temporal deism :/
12:59:09 <clsn> aspect: Well, not necessarily easy to find the bias on the other side. Especially since it's a lot harder to come up with a *unified* bias/
12:59:10 <sbp> aspect: well I haven't seen any such psychological rationalisations
12:59:19 <Arnia> It vexes me because I *am* an extra-temporal deist
12:59:25 <clsn> Arnia: Sorry about that, but it's done, and I don't care, so nyah.
12:59:26 * sbp thinks about William Newbold as a good example
12:59:32 *** TedThibodeauJr (n=Thud@63.119.36.36) has joined #swhack
12:59:52 <sbp> would you claim that Newbold wasn't psychologically biased?
13:00:07 <Arnia> clsn: well, what can I call my position on these matters so that it doesn't scare off non-philosophically knowledgeable people?
13:00:13 <aspect> never heard of this Bill Newbold
13:00:27 <sbp> he was a Voynich MS scholar who thought he'd managed to decipher the document
13:00:28 <clsn> Yeah, there was an interesting talk at my synagogue last year about such things... Didn't convince me of something NEW so much as correctly pointed out that it's no fair discounting God as an answer just because it's God. There may be other reasons, but you have to use them if so.
13:01:01 <sbp> he came up with this theory of micropalaeography, looking at features of the characters that could only be seen under a microscope and believing that they were what encoded the meaning of the document
13:01:04 <clsn> Arnia: You can call it Arnia's Super Philosophy, extra-concentrated, only $19.95 plus shipping and handling.
13:01:12 <sbp> (already starting to look eyebrow raising...)
13:01:25 <aspect> clsn: well put. Often I thought the missing link in the debate I mentioned (on the rationalist side) was "what you call God I call nature .. and some of its properties I can only conjecture about too"
13:01:45 <clsn> sbp: I read an article similar to that regarding some ancient Hebrew stuff, that subconscious forms of the letters encoded tone of voice and stuff.
13:01:45 <sbp> and then his decryption process involved a convoluted several step process which was so malleable that he could sway the translations that he got out of it by subtle tweaks
13:02:00 <sbp> but, to all intents and purposes, to Newbold himself especially, it looked like a scientific method
13:02:08 <aspect> sbp: a precursor to the bible code, I see
13:02:08 <sbp> he was examining the characters, their objective characteristics
13:02:12 <sbp> and applying a process to it
13:02:13 <sbp> somewhat
13:02:14 <Arnia> clsn: To be honest, I believe what I believe and part of that (and my morals) is that I don't judge others for holding other beliefs. I get worried by the trends in public rhetoric by people like Dawkins and O'Connor
13:02:22 <sbp> only Newbold eventually realised himself what he was doing
13:02:30 <aspect> Dawkins particularly shits me
13:02:39 <sbp> the canonical example in the scientific literature is N-Rays
13:02:52 <sbp> have you heard about N-Rays?
13:03:06 <clsn> Arnia: I'm somewhat similar, though perhaps less focussed than you. Trouble is that a great deal of belief these days involves beliefs that want to be replicated.
13:03:13 <aspect> sbp: rings a bell .. 'pediaing now
13:03:14 <clsn> sbp: sounds familiar...
13:03:22 <clsn> .wik n-rays
13:03:23 <phenny> "The so-called N rays (or N-rays) were a phenomenon described by French scientist René-Prosper Blondlot but subsequently found to be illusory." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-rays
13:03:52 <sbp> it's a shame that the Wikipedia article doesn't quite capture how brilliant the whole thing was
13:03:57 <sbp> I mean, for a start it went on for aaaages
13:04:01 <aspect> clearly :P
13:04:05 <Arnia> clsn: yes, I think that's a symptom of mass-media in part, but I'm not convinced mass-media is the whole story. People have become a lot more… ego-centric (not necessarily selfish, just they have a far stronger sense of 'me')
13:04:05 <sbp> and the support that Blondlot got was quite strong
13:04:26 <sbp> and then with one simple bit of furtive falsification, Robert Wood disproves the whole thing as a piece of pathalogical science
13:04:36 <Arnia> Cult of Celebrity too
13:04:54 <sbp> I gave another example in here just the other day
13:04:56 <clsn> Maybe so, Arnia. And as some points of view become more missionary, others respond in kind.
13:05:59 <sbp> <sbp> I like Feynman's story about the measurement of some subatomic value
13:05:59 <sbp> <sbp> one famous physicist made it 1.5 or whatever, and so people went into their labs and checked it, and they were like... 1.5! yep, 1.5. 1.51, 1.5, 1.52, 1.53...
13:05:59 <sbp> <sbp> and over the years the value drifted... 1.54, 1.55, 1.58, 1.59, 1.58... the actual value was like 1.585 or whatever, and the original physicist had simply got it wrong
13:05:59 <sbp> <sbp> so why, Feynman wondered, did the subsequent experimenters also get it wrong in the same way, only gradually finding the value wrong?
13:06:01 <sbp> <sbp> and he figured that it was because they'd *fudged* their results, consciously or sub-consciously, because they believed the right value was different from the one that they were getting and sought to get rid of their perceived, but actually phantom, error
13:06:05 <sbp> <sbp> moral of the story: if you get bad results, you have to present them too
13:06:12 <Arnia> clsn: yes, which is why I feel Dawkins et al are harmful. He is part of the cycle that pushes the world to extremity and makes society hard to hold together.
13:07:00 <sbp> science is kinda its own protection against bias, but there's probably no foolproof method
13:07:01 <Arnia> (I pick on Dawkins particularly because his hypocrisy is easy to attack, but both 'sides' — I hesitate to use that term usually — are as bad as each other)
13:07:05 <aspect> sbp: I don't think that moral's enough to protect against psychological bias
13:07:16 <sbp> cf. 20th century philosophy of science, Kuhn and Popper and Feyerabend etc.
13:07:23 <sbp> that's moral's enough?
13:07:31 <sbp> er, that moral's. right
13:07:45 <sbp> yeah, but I didn't claim it was
13:08:02 <sbp> it's a good tool, however, for people who are actively checking for bias
13:08:07 <Arnia> sbp: something I'm interested in pursuing; using my communicon model to spot the way biases (such as theoretical frameworks) propogate through a community
13:08:23 <Arnia> Of course, infinite regress and all that
13:08:38 <sbp> presumably people who are scientists want to be good scientists, and one of the ways that you be a good scientist is trying to eliminate bias; so you'd presumably want to accrue techniques surrounding that
13:08:48 *** crschmidt (i=crschmid@bia.crschmidt.net) has joined #swhack
13:08:49 <sbp> Arnia: interesting
13:08:57 *** crschmidt has parted #swhack ()
13:08:58 <procto> good morning folks
13:08:58 <sbp> yo crschmidt
13:09:03 <sbp> disyo crschmidt
13:09:10 <sbp> hey procto
13:09:16 <procto> overcoming bias is a paramount intellectual pursuit imo
13:09:27 * kpreid blinks
13:09:29 <sbp> I always get frightened when crschmidt joins in case I blew up bia
13:09:30 <kpreid> hello!
13:09:34 <sbp> yo kpreid
13:09:37 <Arnia> sbp: remember though, all tools are just tools. They are of limited applicability, and you're missing out on a lot if you use just one.
13:09:38 <clsn> Arnia: I'm not terribly involved in the public process of the debate (by choice), and intuitively I find myself thinking not-so-bad thoughts about Dawkins on the grounds that it IS good to get people thinking a little more, and even simplified science is a start. But yes, he's inflammatory and nobody needs that.
13:09:39 <procto> alas, I literally just crowled out of bed and my input may be rather scant
13:09:54 <sbp> yeah, which is why I used techniques in the decided plural :-)
13:09:54 <MoiraA> crap!
13:09:55 <MoiraA> hello
13:09:55 <kpreid> I'm just pondering whether to speak up on disagreements :-)
13:09:58 <sbp> hey MoiraA
13:10:03 <MoiraA> what's wrong with my cloak activation
13:10:07 <sbp> BLOODY PHILOSOPHICAL PULP
13:10:22 <procto> part of working with biases and such is how objective do you think the world really is
13:10:27 *** ja (n=c@user-0c2ihel.cable.earthlink.net) has joined #swhack
13:10:37 <procto> some people think there is a an ultimate true world you car dig down to
13:10:48 * MoiraA closes mirc and reopens it again
13:10:51 <procto> afaict Arnia does not believe so
13:10:53 *** MoiraA has quit ("Leaving!")
13:10:54 <sbp> I'm softer towards Dawkins that I was
13:11:05 <sbp> I think he's cool more often than he's uncool
13:11:13 <procto> s/car/can/
13:11:27 <sbp> it's just that when he's uncool he tends to be disproportionately annoying somehow. like he has a freakin' knack for it
13:11:36 <procto> yes
13:12:09 <Arnia> clsn: I'd argue that lies to children approaches to teaching, where you have to throw away all previous narrative, are long-term more likely to harm understanding. And Dawkin's simplifications of the history of science, and the nature of scientific understanding, definitely fall under lies to children, if he knows better, or self-delusion if not.
13:12:36 <procto> I lean towards decision theoretic semantics. now, I hate this word, but I have to say it: the interaction of personal goals creates an emergent reality
13:52:54 *** loggy (i=sbp@66.9.179.67) has joined #swhack
13:52:54 <kornbluth.freenode.net> Topic for #swhack is: Eric Tiedemann → Swhack at Half-Topicmast → ☹ | Swhack: Must be proficient in number theory, familiar with Machiavelli, and own the complete boxed set of 'The West Wing'.
13:52:54 <kornbluth.freenode.net> Users on #swhack: loggy phenny +MoiraA mahound +cre8radix pwaring sbp2002 JibbyBot aspect xavier beobal radii Tene dahut clsn selggig zachb trotek Jonashdsf realist xover jsled Monty Morbus swhacker Mike_L procto Lumiere bancus Louie` earle plum tobbez chandler +deltab dmiles_afk cskaterun +nslater edsu sr ido Pierre eel swhask +lisppaste2 Xanthor +kpreid jlaiv maxkelley CaptSolo tro leobard shepazu kwijibo +Arnia jeffarch TedThibodeauJr ja +sbp xjrn
13:52:58 <Arnia> sbp: Ok. If we can explain every interesting property about the mind in terms of the physical, then the mind is reduceable to the physical
13:52:58 <sbp> there we go
13:53:15 <sbp> okay, granted so far
13:53:33 <Arnia> sbp: if we can explain every interesting property about the physical in terms of the mind, then the physical is reducable to the mind
13:54:03 <Arnia> sbp: if however, we cannot reduce either way then we have a situation of supervenience
13:54:15 <sbp> wow. what a lovely explanation
13:54:16 <sbp> thanks!
13:54:24 <clsn> .wik supervenience
13:54:25 <phenny> "In philosophy, supervenience is a kind of dependency relationship, typically held to obtain between sets of properties." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience
13:55:23 <kpreid> Arnia: I expect the first is the case and I'm not sure what the second would be, so I can't say about it :-)
13:56:02 <Arnia> sbp: the properties of the physical or mental will be seen (if we maintain the perspective of one being 'dominant' and especially if we view them as more than just perspectives on a single system) as 'emergent' from the other (which way will depend on your bias)
13:56:19 *** cskaterun has quit ()
13:56:40 <Arnia> sbp: but I personally hold that both are just perspectives, and neither is dominant. Which is what being a monist means to me.
13:57:07 *** stwange (n=y@scooter2.resnet.susx.ac.uk) has joined #swhack
13:57:08 <Arnia> For me, the physical is just the subspace of the system which has a metric
13:57:12 <sbp> if both could be reduced in the way that you describe, what situation would we have then? what is, in other words, the antonym of supervenience?
13:57:33 <Arnia> sbp: they'd be isomorphic
13:57:33 <Monty> Web application
13:57:36 <kpreid> .wn supervenience
13:57:40 <sbp> thanks
13:57:49 <Arnia> The mental is another subspace, but I'm still working on what defines that
13:57:59 <sbp> that helps me too since now I can tie it to my knowledge of isomorphism
13:58:03 <sbp> which mainly I know from graph theory
13:58:07 <Arnia> And I'm not sure if the mental and physical perspectives are a partition of the space
13:58:15 <sbp> (via RDF, I mean)
13:58:23 <Arnia> Yeah
13:59:01 <Arnia> Does what I say make sense?
13:59:15 * Arnia is still a bit low and so not sure about his ability to communicate
13:59:18 <sbp> still digesting it, hang on
13:59:24 <Arnia> Well, I'm never sure about my ability to communicate :p
13:59:26 <kpreid> .wik supervenience
13:59:27 <phenny> "In philosophy, supervenience is a kind of dependency relationship, typically held to obtain between sets of properties." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience
14:00:16 <sbp> yeah. I don't even begin to understand what would constitute the mental subspace though
14:01:36 <Arnia> sbp: I'm well aware it is going to take me a long time to sort through that
14:02:28 <sbp> well if you dump further notes about it on Swhack, please try to refer to it as "mental space" or something recognisable from today's discussion at least, would ya please? :-)
14:02:38 <Arnia> will do
14:02:44 <sbp> thxings
14:03:05 *** stwange has parted #swhack ()
14:03:51 <Arnia> That was a fun discussion (for me; most were probably bored stiff)
14:03:54 <sbp> Arnia: what of your signed concepts are you most proud of so far?
14:04:11 <sbp> or signable concepts. I guess concepts aren't signed until they get a bit older
14:04:38 <sbp> (example of a signed concept, for anyone following along: Kant's noumenon)
14:04:44 <Arnia> sbp: hm... difficult one because I don't see them as separable. They're all part of one grand idea I'm continually working on
14:04:51 <sbp> fair enough
14:05:50 <Arnia> If I were to pick one sub-concept, it would probably be the General Cognitive Architecture because it is the one most likely to improve people's lot.
14:06:20 <sbp> do I smell an essay coming over the horizon? :-)
14:06:23 <Arnia> But I don't view any of them as 'correct' or 'done', so it is not really pride but rather a feeling of potential
14:07:18 <Arnia> sbp: possibly, but I'm going to write the 'Four Pet Philosophical Peeves' one first
14:07:27 <Arnia> And I don't have time for any right now
14:07:33 <sbp> I didn't even know about that one
14:07:39 <sbp> bummer
14:07:54 <Arnia> sbp: from a discussion with procto a few days ago
14:08:02 <Arnia> (about 3am in the morning)
14:08:23 <sbp> aha. I missed one or two days' scrollback because I got engaged rather strongly in my own work
14:08:40 <Arnia> To summarise; my four pet peeves are: dualism, objectivism, temporal provincialism and ostrichism.
14:08:49 <sbp> sweet
14:09:33 *** kwijibo has quit ()
14:09:51 <Arnia> The first three you know yourself, but the last is the approach of taking a single philosophical tool and believing that not only is that tool the only tool worth using but that questions which cannot be answered by that tool aren't even meaningful.
14:10:15 <sbp> 2 and 3 I've been writing about a lot in the unnamed essay collection
14:10:24 <sbp> I should at least give it a provisional title. hmm. like Spore, perhaps
14:10:32 <Arnia> :)
14:10:47 <sbp> and aha, I see how that relates to something you said earlier
14:10:59 <sbp> <Arnia> sbp: remember though, all tools are just tools. They are of limited applicability, and you're missing out on a lot if you use just one.
14:11:53 <Arnia> I'm still thinking about a good way to write my collection of notes on my thoughts. I feel a crammer's guide to my philosophy might be useful to the poor sods who try and understand just what I'm blathering about here
14:13:07 <Arnia> Essays are good for drawing a thread through a sequence of ideas, but aren't very good for random access. I feel they should be complemented with a denser reference.
14:13:22 <Arnia> If only for my own ability to keep track of what the hell I'm thinking about
14:14:22 <sbp> dunno how you'd arrange such a reference though
14:14:53 <sbp> I tend to think that the cost of creating references is so high that usually the just blather-and-whee method is the best way to go
14:15:24 <sbp> the problem with innovation vs. presentation
14:15:31 <Arnia> I'd probably arrange it as a wiki
14:15:44 <sbp> oh, that might be very nice. hmm
14:15:48 <sbp> like Lisi's wiki
14:15:51 <sbp> I like Lisi's wiki
14:15:53 <Arnia> But limit how long an article can be
14:16:18 <Arnia> Not a hard limit, but try and keep it as pithy as possible
14:16:27 <sbp> mmm
14:23:36 <Arnia> Something for when I get time I guess
14:24:18 *** thelsdj (n=thelsdj@c-67-180-147-3.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
14:25:23 <Arnia> I never have enough time
14:39:54 *** lordi (n=hannes@sedanet0.sedan.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE) has joined #swhack
14:42:50 <sbp> Coleridge once wrote out a list of the projects we was working on so that he could figure out how long they'd take, and surmised a thousand years
14:43:12 <Arnia> Question, how do all you lot manage to get so much done?
14:43:20 <xover> Coleridge kept tabs on us from the past? Quite the crafty fellow.
14:43:33 <sbp> er... he. right. hehe
14:43:58 <sbp> my two main approaches are:
14:44:04 <sbp> 1) try to keep healthy
14:44:11 <sbp> 2) minimise all distractions and obligations
14:44:30 <sbp> both things are rather subject to chance and circumstance
14:44:58 <sbp> but I pursue them with some vehemence, which seems to balance out my negative qualities (procrastination, disability) just about enough to get stuff done
14:44:58 <Monty> Hm.
14:46:07 <Arnia> So many things to think about, so finite a life.
14:46:28 <Arnia> If I believed in fairness, I'd say it wasn't fair. But I don't. So I won't.
14:46:31 <sbp> and De Quincey cried in the British Library
14:47:03 <sbp> (he wanted to read all the books, but realised he couldn't)
14:47:35 <xover> Right. Would everyone please stop writing until I've caught up? Thank you kindly.
14:47:42 <sbp> okay
14:47:42 <sbp> sure
14:47:44 <sbp> no problem
14:47:52 <sbp> but
14:47:54 <sbp> like
14:47:56 <sbp> let us know
14:48:02 <sbp> when you've caught up, I mean
14:48:04 <sbp> if that's okay
14:48:06 <sbp> it'd be handy
14:48:07 <sbp> and stuff
14:48:23 <xover> Are we off our Ritalin again, hmm?
14:48:27 <sbp> hehe
14:48:33 <sbp> I just spread the joke over too many lines
14:48:47 <sbp> I thought like, if I just keep adding lines, that will make it funnier
14:48:57 <sbp> and eventually I realised that that wasn't as true as I had hoped it might be
14:52:42 <Arnia> oh, sbp:
14:52:45 <Arnia> .wik eyetap
14:52:46 <phenny> "The EyeTap is a name for a device that is worn in front of the eye that" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyetap
14:53:56 *** xjrn has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
14:55:26 <xover> ...blocks out the end of .wik output.
14:55:33 <sbp> ah! interesting
14:55:42 <xover> Also…
14:55:44 <sbp> and, on the syntax problem, weird
14:55:50 <xover> @Foyle'sWar++
15:02:54 *** danieljohnlewis (n=danieljo@82-198-140-17.nethop.ie) has joined #swhack
15:04:18 *** danieljohnlewis has parted #swhack ()
15:11:19 *** djl (n=danieljo@82-198-140-17.nethop.ie) has joined #swhack
15:12:21 *** djl has quit (Remote closed the connection)
15:12:55 *** RobotGuy (n=robotguy@dsl093-038-072.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net) has joined #swhack
15:14:55 <xover> Hmm.
15:16:23 <Arnia> Interesting idea: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=22975092752
15:16:45 <Arnia> Every day of May has some 'International X day' associated with it; the more ludicrous the better
15:16:49 <ja> a login screen with 'unferified ceritifcate' xover?
15:17:03 <Arnia> Today is 'International Salsa Day' and tomorrow is 'International Poke Day'
15:17:06 <xover> In an otherwise very intelligent and sensitive series, it's odd that Chief Detective Superintendent Foyle kees letting murder supects go, pass on messages from German spies set to be executed to their families back in Germany by way of apparently innocent English collaborators.
15:17:09 <ja> nice find on that water-born Pokemon day..
15:17:19 <Arnia> Friday is 'International Be Sexually Inappropriate With Your Friends Day'
15:17:58 <Arnia> The 27th is 'International Zombie Day' which I'm particularly looking forward to
15:18:11 <RobotGuy> Arnia: What is the 24th?
15:18:23 <Arnia> 'International Videogame Marathon Day'
15:18:29 <xover> I count three murder suspects let loose for various reasons, before even Foyle could know for certain the details of the murder mystery; based solely on his assessment of their character.
15:18:32 <RobotGuy> Durn
15:19:38 <sbp> Arnia: weird, I just made http://inamidst.com/stuff/q/calendar earlier today
15:19:56 <sbp> where I noticed that there are two Europe Days
15:19:58 <sbp> both in May
15:20:05 <sbp> the first one is today, in fact
15:20:09 <sbp> the second is on the 9th
15:20:27 <deltab> sbp: because people keep forgetting about the first one?
15:21:17 <sbp> heh. more like people debate which one is which
15:21:30 <sbp> can't remember why there are two originally...
15:21:33 * sbp looks it up
15:21:56 <sbp> oh yes. the first is the founding of the Council of Europe
15:22:04 <Arnia> I appreciate the inclusion of the Feast of St Cuthbert
15:22:19 <sbp> the second is the day of Robert Schuman's proposal for an organised Europe
15:22:24 <sbp> Arnia: :-)
15:22:34 <sbp> yeah, that was somewhat you-inspired
15:22:35 <chandler> what kind of calendar is that that doesn't even list Cinco de Mayo?
15:23:07 <sbp> “The holiday commemorates an initial victory of Mexican forces led by General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín over French forces in the Battle of Puebla on 5 May 1862.”
15:23:30 <sbp> why would I celebrate that Mexico beat France in some battle I've never heard of before?
15:23:31 <deltab> chandler: the 5th of May? a misprinted one
15:23:33 <sbp> what's its awesome?
15:23:37 <deltab> lousy Smarch weather
15:23:46 <sbp> oh, noted because it's going on today. I see
15:23:47 <ja> sbp: 'cinco de mayo' is huge in usa
15:24:00 <sbp> ja: yeah, but why?
15:24:04 <chandler> sbp: it's just another drinking holiday; I was being silly
15:24:11 <ja> marketing, i guess. a catchy name and excuse to drink Tequila
15:24:22 <deltab> sbp: it's an initial victory: not sure that counts as beating them
15:24:37 <sbp> ah: “The date is perhaps best recognized in the United States as a date to celebrate the culture and experiences of Americans of Mexican ancestry, much as St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, and the Chinese New Year are used to celebrate those of Irish, German, and Chinese ancestry, respectively”
15:24:49 <sbp> deltab: always best to play up any victory over the French, I say
15:24:55 <ja> when do we celebrate English ancestry :/
15:25:02 <sbp> St. George's Day?
15:25:04 <ja> heh
15:25:05 <ja> nope :P
15:25:16 <sbp> St. Cuthbert's Day?
15:25:20 <ja> i geuss Canada has more of that
15:25:25 <ja> god save the queen is their song?
15:25:27 <sbp> ooh, wait, I have a suggestion
15:25:35 <xover> I think Thursday's Liberation Day around here.
15:26:01 <sbp> hang on, gotta look it up
15:28:23 <sbp> ja: ah, there we go. celebrate it on the 1st November
15:28:41 <sbp> the day that the Stamp Act was made effective, in 1765
15:29:20 <ja> k
15:29:54 <ja> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_Day_(Massachusetts) i just discovered
15:30:06 <sbp> one of the annoying Americentrist slants that I used to have on history was that I thought America was a fairly processing concern to England at the time of its independence
15:30:16 <ja> (via http://www.shagtown.com/days/usa.html )
15:30:22 <sbp> but having looked into it, everyone was basically talking about France and the situation on the continent
15:30:33 <ja> ic
15:30:40 <deltab> sbp: 'pressing'?
15:30:46 <ja> pressing yes
15:30:53 * ja has idea-correction reading process
15:30:59 <sbp> a few radicalists in some far flung colonies declaring independence was absolutely second fiddle to Napoleon accruing a mighty empire
15:31:07 <sbp> er, pressing. aye
15:32:00 <sbp> and the French revolution scared the shit out of our aristocracy
15:32:10 <sbp> in a way that Boston Tea Party rather did not
15:32:42 <sbp> also, after a decade or two, relations between English and American nationals seems to have been pretty damn good
15:32:43 <thelsdj> .u
15:32:47 <phenny> U+0099 (No name found)
15:32:48 <Monty> "you"
15:33:08 <chandler> I don't think Napoleon bothered England much around the time of the US declaration of independence
15:33:21 * sbp hmms at Evacuation Day
15:33:37 <sbp> no, the revolution in France happened just after
15:33:47 <sbp> but it very, very quickly took our minds off of America
15:34:16 <chandler> Napoleon was, indirectly, the cause of the war of 1812 between the US and Britain
15:34:23 <sbp> oh?
15:35:06 <chandler> it originated as a dispute over the British blockade of France, IIRC
15:35:21 <deltab> thelsdj: unassigned control character
15:35:39 <sbp> -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_War_of_1812
15:36:54 <sbp> fairly interesting
15:37:35 <sbp> heh, the War_of_1812 page outlines some interesting reasons
15:37:54 <sbp> * conscription of American sailors into the British navy (= modern bad)
15:38:07 <sbp> * arming the native Americans to defend their lands against settlers (= modern good)
15:49:56 <xover> Oh man. British WWII detective drama, with truly American implausible explosions and attendant excessively morbid corpses.
15:51:12 *** nslater has quit (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
15:51:12 *** Xanthor has quit (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
15:52:14 *** Xanthor (n=Xanthor@ALyon-257-1-89-35.w90-27.abo.wanadoo.fr) has joined #swhack
15:52:14 *** nslater (n=nslater@bytesexual.org) has joined #swhack
15:56:59 *** RobotGuy has parted #swhack ("...")
16:05:20 <sbp> oh man, I just busted out an awesome bit of Shakespearean criticism
16:14:02 <deltab> last week's Look Away Now had a Shakespearean theme
16:14:23 <sbp> .wik Look Away Now
16:14:23 <phenny> "Look Away Now is a Radio 4 sports based comedy presented by Garry Richardson (the Today Programme's sports reporter)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_Away_Now
16:14:33 <sbp> huh, I'd not heard of that
16:17:50 <deltab> yep, it's the one currently on the podcast
16:17:54 <deltab> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/lan/lan_20080430-1859.mp3
16:32:10 <sbp> ooh, thanks. downloading
16:34:51 <deltab> “The show is broadcast on Wednesday s at 6.30pm and looks back at the last five days' action as well as forward to the sporting weekend ahead (a bit like Linda Blair in the Exorcist but with less vomit and more badminton)”
16:40:48 *** Arnia has quit ()
16:55:13 <thelsdj> slow news day
17:19:55 <sbp> modern poetry is weird
17:20:06 <sbp> it's like, free verse form is a means of casting off the shakles of previous oppression
17:20:37 <sbp> but (I think this is Robert Frost's simile) poetry without form is like playing tennis without a net
17:20:47 <sbp> so I wonder if it's just a fad
17:20:58 <sbp> I wonder if we have a bit of angst at being able to beat our predecessors
17:21:55 <sbp> and we figure that the way to acheive that is to be enlightened moderns and use no structure
17:30:42 <ja> thelsdj you ever use that lsdj thing for gba?
17:31:27 <ja> between that and the Korg stuff its almost time to pick up a DS
17:47:08 *** tonybaloney867 (n=tony@pool-72-85-158-97.bstnma.east.verizon.net) has joined #swhack
17:49:53 *** SinDoc (n=skh@88.82.49.246) has joined #swhack
17:57:01 *** lisppaste2 has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
17:57:02 <thelsdj> ja: no, never owned a gba
17:57:09 <thelsdj> i've had a DS for a long time though, pretty nice
17:57:16 <ja> what about Dr Sbaitso
17:57:25 <ja> word, i'll grab a DS then
17:57:28 <ja> supprt the consumer world for once
17:58:47 <ja> you heard OCDJ?
17:59:19 <ja> OCDJ obsessively spins an incredible array of music and compulsively tells you all about it, in between repeated hand washings.
17:59:22 <ja> good stuff
18:10:02 *** lisppaste2 (n=lisppast@common-lisp.net) has joined #swhack
18:18:14 *** leobard has quit ("Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org")
18:18:51 *** nwalsh (n=ndw@66-189-4-239.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com) has joined #swhack
18:18:51 <Monty> howdy, nwalsh
18:20:35 <xover> Scratch that, 3 suspects and one known guilty of murder let out of custody on character alone (the guilty one, granted, to die honorably defending the country).
18:20:56 <xover> Plus the mentioned spy incident.
18:21:04 <xover> All in 6 episodes total.
18:21:34 <xover> This is beginning to irk me.
18:21:38 <sbp> did you just watch all six back to back?
18:22:17 <xover> Gods no, they're an hour an a half per episode.
18:22:36 <sbp> hmm. well I thought you last mentioned it about three hours ago
18:22:58 <sbp> 17:29 <xover> Oh man. British WWII detective drama, with truly American implausible explosions and attendant excessively morbid corpses.
18:23:01 <xover> Yeah, watched the last two more or less back to back.
18:23:07 <sbp> half five, and it's now eight, so nearly!
18:23:20 <sbp> you could've watched one before commenting, and that would be enough time for the six
18:28:09 <sbp> there was just a streaker on snooker
18:28:14 <sbp> he was hiding under the table
18:32:57 <xover> A streaker on snooker?
18:33:02 <xover> You Brits are weird.
18:52:14 *** ja has quit ("frujen")
19:09:22 <chandler> sbp: ping!
19:10:03 <chandler> or anyone else who wants to try pasting some unicode into lisppaste
19:10:54 <sbp> pong
19:11:10 <lisppaste2> xover pasted "Tantek Çelik" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/60301
19:11:29 * sbp tries to find the thing he most recently posted which went wrong
19:12:27 <lisppaste2> jsled annotated #60301 with "unicode into lisppaste" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/60301#1
19:12:36 <jsled> Oh, much better!@
19:12:39 <lisppaste2> sbp pasted "Lobel-Page 105b quoted in Elena Pallantza's paper (Take 2)" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/60302
19:12:50 <sbp> whoo! thanks!
19:13:03 <chandler> no problem. it was actually simpler than I thought
19:13:25 <chandler> of course I'm cheating massively (as internally lisppaste still thinks it's all ISO-8859-1), but who cares?
19:14:10 <sbp> yeah, perceived win is win
19:19:47 *** Pierre has quit (Remote closed the connection)
19:24:45 *** chris2 (n=chris@p5B16AE56.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #swhack
19:25:56 <sbp> deltab: Christina, BBC 4
19:26:00 <sbp> looks pretty damn good so far
19:26:01 *** Pierre (n=pierre@www.thepimp.net) has joined #swhack
19:26:01 <sbp> Michael Wood
19:31:51 *** kwijibo (n=kwijibo@86.47.129.77) has joined #swhack
19:34:43 *** maxkelley has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
19:35:02 *** maxkelley (n=max@cpe-74-69-17-126.rochester.res.rr.com) has joined #swhack
19:35:51 <deltab> two guys talking about coppicing?
19:37:22 <sbp> yeah
19:39:08 * deltab watches Flood instead
19:39:32 <deltab> (which doesn't have an upcoming repeat)
19:41:29 <sbp> :-)
19:48:41 *** BigJibby (n=matt@142.46.8.22) has joined #swhack
19:50:06 <sbp> one really nice thing about this is that they're quoting functional Middle English in the original pronunciation
20:02:59 *** SinDoc has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
20:10:17 <zachb> hai evry1
20:10:22 <zachb> ;-)
20:11:26 <bancus> omg hai2u
20:19:35 *** TedThibodeauJr has quit ()
20:28:35 <zachb> kthxu?
20:33:42 *** plum has quit (Remote closed the connection)
20:41:56 *** plum (n=plum@unaffiliated/plum) has joined #swhack
20:42:10 *** plum has quit (Remote closed the connection)
20:55:29 *** ja (n=c@user-0c2ihel.cable.earthlink.net) has joined #swhack
21:10:25 *** jeffarch_ (n=jja@pdpc/supporter/active/jeffarch) has joined #swhack
21:10:41 *** jeffarch has quit (Nick collision from services.)
21:10:55 *** jeffarch_ is now known as jeffarch
21:13:43 *** mahound is now known as mahound_
21:15:16 *** mahound_ is now known as mahound
21:19:00 <zachb> .calc cube root of (384 squared)
21:24:40 *** cre8radix has quit (Remote closed the connection)
21:27:38 *** cre8radix (n=cre8radi@p54BE7D9F.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #swhack
21:36:37 *** zachb has quit (Remote closed the connection)
21:39:47 *** zachb (n=zachb@c-71-192-250-122.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
21:41:41 *** jeffarch has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
21:53:00 *** BigJibby has quit (Remote closed the connection)
21:53:38 *** BigJibby (n=matt@142.46.8.22) has joined #swhack
22:05:18 *** xjrn (n=jim@c-76-102-228-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
22:05:28 *** cre8radix has quit ()
22:23:40 <bancus> Goddamn Spotlight is slower than fuck.
22:24:02 <bancus> And it slows down my whole system while looking.
22:27:33 <Tene> What speed is fuck?
22:27:55 *** chris2 has quit ("Leaving")
22:37:02 <bancus> Depends on how good it is.
22:39:15 <Tene> So how does velocity vary with quality?
22:39:31 *** MoiraA has quit (Remote closed the connection)
22:39:47 *** xjrn has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
22:40:30 <bancus> Rather quality varies with velocity.
22:42:25 <Tene> What's the end behavior of the graph?
22:44:33 <bancus> You've moved beyond my vocabulary.
22:44:51 <bancus> But time must also be considered at a dimension.
22:45:05 <bancus> The velocity/time curve determines the quality.
22:45:14 <bancus> as a
22:49:39 <Tene> As velocity increases without limit, what's the behavior of quality?
22:50:05 <bancus> Probably a bell curve, or something like it.
22:50:31 <bancus> As you reach the point where bits are being rubbed raw.
22:52:26 *** lordi has quit ("Ex-Chat")
22:57:38 *** TedThibodeauJr (n=Thud@c-76-119-195-179.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
22:59:40 *** martianixor (n=martiani@41.235.149.193) has joined #swhack
23:00:08 *** martianixor has quit (Client Quit)
23:21:45 *** tonybaloney867 has quit ("Fare Ye Well!")
23:26:42 *** plum (n=plum@unaffiliated/plum) has joined #swhack
23:33:37 *** MorbusIff (n=morbus@c-24-34-64-110.hsd1.nh.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
23:43:13 *** themandotcom_ (n=themando@pool-72-80-180-63.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has joined #swhack
23:46:28 *** cskaterun (n=cskateru@cpe-76-88-47-247.san.res.rr.com) has joined #swhack
23:46:28 <Monty> hey cskaterun
23:48:04 <chandler> hi Monty!!!!
23:48:06 <Monty> Where I don’t believe he wanted a buzzword
23:48:14 <chandler> Monty: who's he?
23:48:21 <Monty> let's be realistic... most clients support or place where I smell an hour apology from Gk. poetes 'maker, author, poet,' from internets
23:49:01 *** mahound has quit (Connection timed out)
23:50:07 *** mahound (n=mahound@unaffiliated/mahound) has joined #swhack
23:50:08 <Monty> But what does mahound have to do with the price of fish?
23:52:58 *** mahound has quit (Client Quit)
23:53:42 <chandler> Monty: evidently not much
23:53:45 <Monty> stop there. leave it you’ll return my social desire to everyone