Ari Rahikkala
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Ari Rahikkala" journal:[<< Previous 20 entries]
|
09:02 pm
[Link] | <@ari> HAHAHAHAHAHAH, SHIT
<@ari> SO I TRIED DANCING SOME AYU TRANCE 2 SHIT
<@ari> A 36-MINUTE STEPMANIA SONG
<@ari> I WAS DOING WELL UNTIL SHIT SUDDENLY SPEEDS UP LIKE 8X AT
<@ari> WELL
<@ari> I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART
<@ari> BUT I SUSPECT IT WAS 34 MINUTES
<@ari> DIDN'T TIME THAT SHIT
<@ari> SHOULD HAVE THOUGH
<@ari> SHIT WAS... WELL... WOULDN'T SAY UNPLEASANT
<@ari> BUT DEMANDING
<@ari> BUT, THAT SPED-UP PART? THAT NEEDS TO BE PRACTISED SEPARATELY
<@ari> NO WAY I'M GOING TO PASS THAT
<@ICEBREAKER> ari: YOU GOT TROLLED
<@ari> I GOT TROLLED.
In other news, supposing God's just a physics student in a higher universe which has hypercomputers, I wonder if She defined a single point in our universe's history and then computed two supertasks of an infinite number of moments of physics on from that, one forward and one backward. Because, you know, I'd like to hear what William Lane Craig would think of that.
|
|
07:05 pm
[Link] | Today, I shall run strings fdepths and see if I can find oddly disjointed passages in the output that seem to work as poetic narratives of some kind.
( Read more... )
Mission accomplished! Also, as a further boon, here's a sequence that's not as disjointed (i.e. you can actually develop some kind of an idea what's going on, especially if you've played roguelikes before) although it does continuity problems:
( Read more... )
|
|
12:30 pm
[Link] | When they designed the energy economy stuff and the base facilities, specifically recycling tanks, for SMAC, they should have put two and two together.
|
|
01:45 am
[Link] |
#etd
18:33 <@JIGP> LOL: "gonzÁlez"
18:33 <@D000242> UH? DOES IT HAVE THAT ACCENT SHIT ON IT?
18:33 <@JIGP> D000242: GONZÁLEZ HAS A TILDE
18:33 <@JIGP> HOW COME YOU'RE SPANISH AND YOU DON'T KNOW
18:34 <@D000242> OOP, LOL
18:34 <@D000242> I DON'T KNOW!!!!
18:34 <@JIGP> WHERE'S YOUR MOTHERFUCKING REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA?!!!
18:35 <@D000242> I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!
18:35 <@ari> D000242: RATE HAVING KNOWLEDGE
18:36 <@D000242> ARI: THOUGHT BEGETS HERESY. HERESY BEGETS RETRIBUTION.
18:36 <@D000242> A SMALL MIND IS A TIDY MIND!!!!
01:42 <@icebreaker> D000242: HOLY CHALICE OF VALENCIA (Y/N)
01:42 <@D000242> DUNNO, Y, WHY NOT
01:42 <@D000242> ANYWAY, THE ORIGINAL CHALICE IS UNDER ALL THAT GOLD SHIT
01:42 <@D000242> THEY ADDED A LOT OF PLUGINS OVER THE CENTURIES
|
|
04:59 pm
[Link] | 16:56 < vinicius> vut is up with over 9000 hits on my port 55555
16:58 < hzu> vinicius: was sortof packeting you
16:58 < vinicius> awesome botnet you have
16:58 < hzu> 2 isdn lines baby
|
|
12:46 pm
[Link] |  lol Estonians
|
|
05:02 pm
[Link] | helmikuussa kertaamaan \o/
|
|
08:12 am
[Link] | Sometimes I wish I lived in the world I think I live in.
|
|
07:06 pm
[Link] | 19:05 < brenden> why am i not mentioned anywhere on your blag
|
|
10:19 pm
[Link] |
A recapitulation of criticism against the theory of childhood
The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once? Just consider these arguments:
There is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skullbones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can't find them, because they don't exist. There isn't a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.
The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.
To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we'd all be demanding and impatient, and we'd be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.
There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact.
|
|
08:38 am
[Link] |
Things that annoy me, part #2435243:
("evolution" in this post means the "usual kind" of evolution - artificial or natural selection, sexual recombination, random mutation, the works)
I am annoyed by people who argue that abiogenesis and evolution are completely different and separate things, meaning you could arbitrarily accept neither, either or both as you liked. Life is a complex thing, but as far as I know, our current theories largely imply that simpler forms of "semi-life" can still be acted on by the incredibly general mechanisms of evolution, and if those mechanisms didn't work, you'd have no abiogenesis. In other words, !evolution implies !abiogenesis, so abiogenesis implies evolution
I am annoyed by people who *don't* argue that evolution and universal common descent are mostly different and separate things. That is, almost everyone. Where are all the creationists arguing that evolution does work but all the creatures were made (nearly?) in their current image anyway? They'd have a much stronger case if they didn't have to discredit all the evidence for evolution (because, since the mechanisms really are so general, the evidence sometimes comes from distant places).
To compactify:
- abiogenesis implies evolution
- universal common descent implies evolution (well, basically. I guess you could say "we all have a common ancestor, but all the genetic changes come from God... but I don't think many people would say that)
- evolution does not imply abiogenesis
- evolution does not imply universal common descent
In essence, if you're debating a creationist and you somehow get them to accept evolution... yeah. You mightn't have gotten as far as you thought.
Also, as a completely separate item of annoyance: People who pussyfoot about the "people came from apes" terminology. We did. Accept it. Look at the common ancestor of humans and apes, and you'll find it is an ape. No-one says that Europeans and Americans descend from a common ancestor. (you can thank George Gaylord Simpson for this item - the man pointed it out in 1964 and people *still* aren't listening!)
|
|
11:49 pm
[Link] | 23:31 < vininim> hi, i'm jacques derrida and I propose methods for text analysis, but it's not text analysis, ok? lol
23:42 < vininim> hi, i'm baudelaire I smoke opium and write non-sense, I'm a poet. lol
23:47 < vininim> hi, i'm deleuze and i have buttseks with foucault, gave me some spotlight. lol
|
|
11:44 pm
[Link] | Intense.
|
|
07:38 pm
[Link] | The great thing about Dresden Codak is that every time you read an update, you develop these enormous expectations for the next one - but then it takes so long for the update to come that you'll forget those expectations, and the next strip will get to just be awesome on its own.
|
|
08:27 pm
[Link] | You know you're taking NIH too far when someone asks you not to do something, and the reason why you comply is that you hadn't come up with the idea yourself before it was given to you in the form of asking you not to do it.
|
04:02 am
[Link] |
Ari is helpful and kind (also, Ice will hate on me for this)
03:52 < roconnor> > 68*atan(1/23) + 32*atan(1/182) + 40*atan(1/5118) + 20*atan(1/6072)
03:52 < lambdabot> 3.141592653589793
03:57 < roconnor> > 176*atan(1/57) + 28*atan(1/239) - 48*atan(1/682) + 96*atan(1/12943)
03:57 < lambdabot> 3.141592653589793
03:58 < ari> > pi
03:58 < lambdabot> 3.141592653589793
03:58 * ari tips hat
04:00 < roconnor> ari: ah, much shorter.
|
|
09:32 pm
[Link] | 21:08 <@ari> BORIS YELTSIN IS DEAD?
21:08 <@ari> I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT
21:08 <@Dolphin> GUESS SO.
21:08 <@Dolphin> HE'S BEEN DEAD FOR A WHILE.
21:09 <@ari> )):
21:10 <@Dolphin> I WONDER WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WHEN GORBACHEV DIES.
21:11 <@ari> GORBACHEV IS STILL ALIVE?
21:11 <@Dolphin> YEAH.
21:11 <@Dolphin> COMMIES LIVE FOREVER.
21:11 <@ari> THIS BLOWS!!!!
|
|
01:54 pm
[Link] | <@ari> So, I was skiing. Now I have a habit of going pretty deep into trains of thought while skiing. It's something I've done all my life, you know I used to just go walking for hours as a kid - I'd just be deep in some strange stream of thoughts, most of them worthless but interesting to me... skiing seems to make it easier to concentrate and not lose those trains, and get some exercise at the same time.
<@ari> Now I have this little program to write and a presentation to give about it in a couple of weeks as part of a course at the university.
<@ari> So, I was pondering that program (since I've had since forever to develop it and haven't written even a line of code yet). It's going to be about trying to visualise a somewhat Darwinian kind of evolution in an easily analysable space - Euclidean with maybe five or so dimensions at most.
<@ari> Anyway, I figured that if I want sexual reproduction to work in a sane way, I'm going to need some way to do spatial indexing. You know, to be able to quickly see what suitable creatures are near some given creature to determine if mating is possible.
<@ari> And then I generalised.
<@ari> I was pretty deep in thought by now. I'd gone from thinking about the program to thinking about the presentation. Basically, I was quite consistently aware that I was actually skiing and not giving a lecture, but the lecture was what I was actually concentrating on.
<@ari> So, I thought "well, I'm not sure if there's a kd-tree library for Haskell (there was no Java language requirement), and I sure don't want to write one myself for this shit... uh... I guess I'll just do Morton ordering and use Data.Set (which is implemented with a binary tree)"
<@ari> So imagine this:
<@ari> There I was, running the skiing thread in the background while furiously scribbling recursive Z's and binary trees and quadtrees (for comparison), in the small classroom where I'm going to give the presentation. I look at my audience, and...
<@ari> ... they all look like the last panel in http://dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2008-02-23 .
<@ari> I freak out enough that I have to stop, take a few deep breaths, get back to reality, etc..
<@ari> Anyway, yeah. One moment, trying to describe how to exploit coherency in n-dimensional spaces with just a binary tree and the right ordering relation - the next moment, monsters, monsters everywhere.
|
|
10:53 am
[Link] | In our posthuman future, where we're all silhouettes surrounded by swirly colours and have figured out how to create perfect p-zombies, I will run simulations of societies believing in the most preposterous myths I can come up with.
I sometimes worry that in our posthuman future, we will decide that man is not a moral object.
|
|
08:09 pm
[Link] | So I mentioned on #ecco-the-dolphin that I've been pondering about scientology and was going to post in my LJ about it. Isaac got interested and now he's been spending the last two days telling me to stop procrastinating and just post it :p.
Ah well. Basically, I've had a change of heart was triggered by hearing about Project Chanology, and motivated by section 4.5.2 in the Meaning of Life FAQ and the Fishman Deposition:
I've realised two things. Firstly, it doesn't make any sense to be afraid of what could have been. The time in my life that I was susceptible to the influence of Scientology (or, indeed, most things showing too obvious signs of cultishness) is long gone. Secondly, while a lot of evil has been done in the name of Scientology, that's peanuts to the evil that has been done in the name of Communism, Fascism, or (god forbid) Christianity.
Basically, Scientology is just too far away (they have only a tiny Finnish operation, and no tax exemption in Finland) and too insignificant to go through the trouble of hating. Hating absolutely nobody is perhaps unlikely but it's a good bunch easier than going through life actively hating just one group of people.
|
[<< Previous 20 entries] |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ari_rahikkala's journal