Each of these corresponds to a single binary number, and if your random number generator analogy is right, then they should be equally likely. But obviously a monkey is far more likely to type "ee" than "War and Peace".


I'd grant that. I'd say that an average monkey might type "ee" a billion, billion times more often that it would type "War and Peace" (edit: by this, I mean the literal string "War and Peace", not the text of that book). And it gets exponentially worse with longer sequences, becoming fantastically improbable by the end of page one and incomprehensible by the end.

Then we divide that ridiculous number by infinity, and we're back to the result being an absolute certainty.

I think I can show that all non-terminating sets either are undefined, and/or, the largest set of infinities in existence.


The infinities are already pretty well ordered...

A brief summary: the set of integers, rationals, and "computable irrationals" (including pi and every other number that makes any kind of sense) are all the same size.

Moving up one level, there are incomprehensibly more real numbers, as reals include a bunch of nonsense which we can't "map to" (in the way we can map between integers and rationals): numbers that never terminate and for which there can't exist a pattern fully describing them. The larger cardinalities are difficult to properly consider.

This isn't explained well on any "pop-math" website I've seen (the relevant wikipedia article isn't terribly helpful), but it makes sense if you have a general understanding of computers. Clearly, any number that follows a proper pattern can be described by a computer program on some possible computer (and all computer programs clearly correspond to integers).

If Jar Jar could have been done with an incomprehensible language with subtitles then it might have been consistant with the rest of the original star wars films--but consistency wasn't what Georgey was going for. As it stands I still haven't watched the Star Wars Episode Podracer: The CG/Greenscreen Strikes Back! (And I never intend to*.)




*I'm running on the assumption that if you've seen Weird Al's American Pie cover video, and a few other random internet clips, you don't need to sit through episode 1.

1. Why is it that the more we move away from social democracy and towards fundamentalist capitalism, the more stratified our culture becomes. With record high profits, record low taxes, deregulation of the financial sector and privatization of the government, why is there more corruption, more inequality, more violence, more war, more unemployment, more inflation, more poverty and more misery rather than less. Why are your beliefs so at odds with reality?

And also, individualism is a zero sum game by definition - my me mine. Collectivism is a ‘multi-sum’ game by definition - us we ours. You have it completely backwards. You can’t have it both ways. A functioning democracy works in concert with markets and regulates them to make sure they remain working in a 'multi-sum' manner.

2. You didn't explain why countries that lean more towards social democracy have a happier, healthier, better off populous than countries that lean more towards deregulated markets? Do you dispute this disparity? If so, back it up. Why is it that the more we stray from the New Deal in our own country, the worse our country suffers?

3. Liberals oppose human science? As in eugenics? Liberals prioritize tribalism over science? What does that even mean? Knowledge is useless unless it can make you money? This section is incomprehensible. This is an area of argument I've not heard before. I'd be interested to hear you flesh it out in a more straightforward manner.

4. Cool, let’s get to the heart of the problem:

What does capitalism have to do with liberty? Doesn’t it seem manipulative to define your partisan economic outlook as the embodiment of liberty? How would you feel if I started using social democracy and liberty as the same word? (note to self: fun argument applications here.) How would unregulated markets deal with chattel or wage slavery, labor abuse, environmental destruction, violence, unemployment, vast social inequity, or other kinds of oppression? Why would unregulated markets care that people are suffering?

Why has there never been a successful free market society?

Why is it that the individual tenets of the free market (lowering taxes,lowering wages,deregulation,privatization,austerity) seem to have such a negative and destructive effect on society?

I said numbers don't mean anything, but if you want to make a big deal out of my comment, fine..God gives everyone a fair chance..anyone who goes to hell is just someone who refused to turn from their evil..it's not like anyone is "stuck" somewhere, as if God couldn't reach them..God isn't limited..so what is incomprehensible to you is possible for Him..Here is a primary example of God reaching someone who otherwise wouldn't know about HIm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvvClFSMIzA

>> ^mizila:
The true God would have the number one, I'm sorry, "#1" religion? Seriously? Even if that religion is only two-sevenths of the world's population. Saving two people out of every seven is good enough for God I guess. And then you drag the half of the world you believe are doomed for eternity because they pray to the wrong Magic Sky Person into it and use them to suggest, "Hey they'll all burn in Hell because they picked the wrong God but at least they get the idea, unlike you morons." Of course, Islam and Judaism also believe in the Abrahemic God, so there's a billion and a half people who do believe in your God, but get to go to Hell because they're doing it wrong.
But no, really, your translations of old books and imaginary friend are way better than critical thinking. Three cheers for God!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!!
The Abrahamic God is #1 when worshipped in a (proper) Christian way!!!
>> ^shinyblurry:
Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.

@messenger

QM and I are arguing it was good that previous immigrant groups learned the language and assimilated into successful culture, but it seems like your argument is that it's fine for Americans to be divided up into multiple mutually incomprehensible linguistic/cultural groups, just as Switzerland and Canada are.

I was raised liberal and I was liberal until I began to study the human sciences, so I understand liberalism pretty well.



1. Liberalism doesn't prefer decay, but it does prefer the conditions that cause decay.

1a. I don't think anybody's arguing liberalism didn't cause California's decay. We have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but we're still bankrupt because liberalism advocates decay-causing conditions. For example, liberalism advocates endless immigration from less skilled societies, indeed, from the least-skilled tier of the less skilled societies, then encourages immigrants to not learn the language that leads to success.

1b. Once things begin to decay, liberalism then complains that employers aren't willing to pay more for jobs that we don't even need to be done. California doesn't automate jobs in e.g. agriculture that other societies automate because liberalism brought us enough unskilled labor to last for hundreds of years. Automation is getting better every year, but the skill-level of the population is going to stay at the same low level, so know that underemployment and poverty are probably going to steadily get worse, just as they've done since when California was one of the best places in the world.


This mess has nothing to do with the smart fraction, and they're right to excuse themselves from it.


Sources:
• Immigration decreases farm automation
• Immigrants' descendants on average show little improvement in educational attainment even after 4 generations.

ME WANT MUPPET MOVIE! *incomprehensible yelling* *bangs drums*

He's missing the distinction between technology and design.

DVD is a far superior technology to VHS, be it visual quality, content searching, storage density, or pretty much anything.

What he is complaining about is design, and it's a valid point. Incomprehensible remotes and unresponsive printers are terribly designed. That isn't the fault of improved tech though, it's the result of lazy designers focusing on fitting in more features than making a usable product.

So, I've been thinking about conflict and rhetorical escalation. I genuinely feel bad for hurting blankfists feelings to the point that he will not speak to me, but in all honesty, I feel my comments were far less severe than his, which got me thinking about how arguments effect feelings.

There are two ways to view what is appropriate in a heated discussion.

#1) tit for tat-Code of Hammurabi-eye for an eye: If someone says something nasty to you, you say something nasty back and all is fair.

#2) Taking personal boundaries into consideration: Personal boundaries can vary greatly from person to person; some are resistant to high levels of verbal aggression, some can take very little. And, to make things more complicated, people can have different boundary tolerances between what they give and take. So in this sense, the least offensive language in the world dealt to a sensitive person could be seen as more cruel than the most offensive insult in the world dealt to someone with a high tolerance to invective.

I'm not sure which is correct - my right brain and left brain are beating the shit out of each other.

I don't like the idea of going past peoples boundaries, but at the same time, I feel that when others get exceedingly aggressive, they would be well served to experience some of that aggression turned back on them. Of course, I don't say this out loud, so the logic of it all is lost, and in the end I've just hurt someone's feelings whom I care about.

I'd love to hear more opinions on this. I think this gets at the heart of the psychology of this all. I'm also a bit high, and Netrunner says I can be incomprehensible in this state, so hopefully this comment is comprehensible.

Post Script:

#3): Always be completely polite and completely respectful, regardless of anything. This may be the way to go, but you need to be Ghandi or Mother Teresa to have the patience to pull this off.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It wasn't immoral, it redeemed creation, his argument shows no understanding of divine providence. chris chooses to espouse this simplistic viewpoint based on a shallow understanding of His life and work...in no way was it immoral, not under any definition. Jesus said this, that the greatest love is that of someone willing to lay down their life for their friends. Jesus did that because He loves us all, to him we're all his friends. chris's argument is missing the point entirely. We can't get there on our own. There is no on righteous, not one;. Chris is a sinner, and he doesn't want to join God in paradise, he would rather be seperated from God forever..so when God gives him what he wanted you say its immoral. make up your mind
>> ^hpqp:
@shiny: So Jesus Christ is the only one to have allegedly died, nay, sacrificed himself, for others? Wow, that makes him soooo much better, and Christianity the pinnacle of morality!
/sarcasm
Watch and learn:




Jesus is just another avatar for God. How can an omnipotent, omniscient being who CREATED THE ENTIRE FRICKING UNIVERSE possibly be sacrificing ANYTHING or teaching some valuable lesson about living morally by killing a mere material manifestation of himself? It'd be like an adult person impressing an infant by doing the "Gotcher nose!" trick and then expecting, no, DEMANDING the child to be just as sycophantically impressed when he becomes an independent, free-thinking adult.

And why the FUCK would he decide to do this only after humanity has ALREADY had an incredibly harsh, scrounging, feral existence (while he sat on his ethereal ass, no less, watching his beloved creation unfold) composed of much abject suffering, hunger, and violence for the roughly 400,000 years of human development prior? Did an omnipotent god have a momentary (from his perspective, of course!) loss of control? What the fuck kind of interventionist God is he to chose THAT time specifically? Came down with a case of Mondays, maybe? Or did he just not care and decide to mix things up out of boredom? What a narcissistic, manipulative, cynical, uncaring, and abusive asshole your god is if your doctrine is to be believed.

You do not need a god, specifically the Christian god in your case, to be moral. Our continued existence and success as a social species has borne this out. We continue to progress in spite of the hamstringing influence of these unimaginative, sadomasochistic ideas, not because of them. Ideas of flawed and all-too-obviously human minds; superstition and utterly incomprehensible and self-contradictory religion. No divine being had ANY hand in that jumbled mess of a book you revere much. No self-respecting divine being would. Us humans, on the other hand...

>> ^jmzero:

Westy: I don't believe you could be spending a tenth the time reading as you do posting. If you did, I can't imagine you wouldn't have picked up on some basic spelling and grammar rules. If you want people to accept or pay attention to your ideas, why not put in some small effort in writing - and why post if you're not trying to convey ideas?
If you're using "its" as a contraction for "it is", you need an apostrophe: "it's".
If you're talking about something belonging to "they", then you should use "their" instead of "there".
I'm sure you can comprehend those two rules - and following just those two rules would make your posts much easier to read and likely improve your posts' reception greatly.
Moving out from there, there are a tremendous number of spelling and grammatical mistakes in your posts. Some are understandable - it's easy to confuse "reining" and "raining" and only a pedant would jump on you for that kind of error. On the flip side, it's distracting and almost incomprehensible to see "someone" spelled "sum-one". This is a very common English word. Even if you're normally reading another language or have a deep learning/reading disability, how would you have avoided something approximating a proper spelling soaking in at some point? Surely just in the process of posting to this site you would have seen this word spelled correctly thousands of times.
Again, I think the solution is either "spend a tiny amount of time reading instead of posting" or "show a modicum of respect to people reading your posts by making the tiniest effort to spell correctly". Even if your goal is trolling, I think you'll find you get better bites if you put in some effort.
PS: Yes, I'm sure I've made some spelling or grammatical errors in this post. No, I'm not going to proofread it. No, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I don't believe posts need to be perfect; I just think some effort should be made, and I do make some effort to write reasonably.


Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

Westy: I don't believe you could be spending a tenth the time reading as you do posting. If you did, I can't imagine you wouldn't have picked up on some basic spelling and grammar rules. If you want people to accept or pay attention to your ideas, why not put in some small effort in writing - and why post if you're not trying to convey ideas?

If you're using "its" as a contraction for "it is", you need an apostrophe: "it's".
If you're talking about something belonging to "they", then you should use "their" instead of "there".

I'm sure you can comprehend those two rules - and following just those two rules would make your posts much easier to read and likely improve your posts' reception greatly.

Moving out from there, there are a tremendous number of spelling and grammatical mistakes in your posts. Some are understandable - it's easy to confuse "reining" and "raining" and only a pedant would jump on you for that kind of error. On the flip side, it's distracting and almost incomprehensible to see "someone" spelled "sum-one". This is a very common English word. Even if you're normally reading another language or have a deep learning/reading disability, how would you have avoided something approximating a proper spelling soaking in at some point? Surely just in the process of posting to this site you would have seen this word spelled correctly thousands of times.

Again, I think the solution is either "spend a tiny amount of time reading instead of posting" or "show a modicum of respect to people reading your posts by making the tiniest effort to spell correctly". Even if your goal is trolling, I think you'll find you get better bites if you put in some effort.

PS: Yes, I'm sure I've made some spelling or grammatical errors in this post. No, I'm not going to proofread it. No, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I don't believe posts need to be perfect; I just think some effort should be made, and I do make some effort to write reasonably.

With every new video and image, I'm bombarded with incomprehension as to the reality of it.

I sit in my heated, dry living room or office watching destruction that Hollywood uses as entertainment, trying to fathom what is really happening. Trying to put myself in their shoes, purely for compassion's sake.

What are they going to do? Where will they go? How do you start over from that? You can't just go back to work after that. You can't start a new business. There is nothing. The entire infrastructure is gone.

Now I know, Japan is an affluent country and they have their plan but the individual person has nothing. and for those with money, what do you spend it on? Money in the bank isn't worth anything compared to a bottle of water when there isn't any of that either.

And on top of it all, the radiation adds to the fact that huge areas of an over-populated country will be further un-usable. The fallout will destroy what natural resources they have left - the land - for farming or otherwise.

I like my country and I enjoy that we are not over-crowded. Like most Canadians, we take the open outdoors for granted. The point is, we have lots of it. If we could only reach out and share the land.

I keep trying to wrap my head around how small of an area Japan is, how many people live there and how much of the land is being and will be destroyed. Like I said, right now, money means nothing. Right now they need water, food and compassion. I hope their neighbors, the nations that surround Japan, can help out in every way possible with politicking and kicking them while they are down.

My thoughts go out to the families, the kids and the newborns being brought into this chaos.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
Shiny, as a corporeal representative for God's so-called everlasting/universal love, you seem to really relish the idea of people who, y'know, don't fall in line with your incomprehensible and unjustified self-enslavement and stuff BURNING IN HELL FOREVER.
But please, defer the blame for your petty (calling it childish would be an insult to actual well-adjusted children), crass behavior right on back to your evidence-less imaginary friend so you don't have to ever engage anyone in good faith, ever; we're all sinners and you're God's special child/saved and that's that. Actually, considering that, it might be a better idea if you just fuck right off. Go drop a turd in someone else's punch-bowl.


I don't though, I do not relish that. It's the last thing I want. I don't relish the idea of anyone suffering, neither would I want anyone to have to suffer. I know that there are many people who will end up rejecting God, especially in these times. I pray God has mercy on their souls. I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God.

People want to have it both ways. They want Gods justice but not His punishment. God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that. It is only by a narrow margin that anyone could be saved under these circumstances, which is why Jesus Christ died for us. He made a provision for humanity, which despite its continual sinning was well loved by its Creator, even to the point of the death of His own Son.

Justice will be done for the evil committed on Earth and sin wont be allowed in Heaven. Those who hear the message and reject it with receive a greater punishment. That is why, noticing the anti-christian bent on the sift, I have been posting the truth in the threads of anti-christian videos. It's not about my ego..it is about Gods truth and His Word, and compassion for our collective spiritual plight. I don't feel like I am going to make it half the time, and I certainly wouldnt try to put it on that I am somehow more worthy than someone else.

That being said, the lies of the devil are too numerous to count, and far too many people have been duped by them. Anything which points away from Gods truth is a lie, and at least in this country sinning has become socially acceptable, and is even admired. It is also socially acceptable to disparage and denigrate Christians, and obstensively members of other religions. I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent. Society has embraced sin and has become seriously dystopian and nihilisitic. In any case it isn't something I can live with so when there is anti-christian propaganda out there I will respond with the truth. Not to justify myself to someone telling me to fuck off, but as this rudimentry and poorly thought out opinion on me seems to be becoming a concensus, I think the truth is worth stating.

Shiny, as a corporeal representative for God's so-called everlasting/universal love, you seem to really relish the idea of people who, y'know, don't fall in line with your incomprehensible and unjustified self-enslavement and stuff BURNING IN HELL FOREVER.

But please, defer the blame for your petty (calling it childish would be an insult to actual well-adjusted children), crass behavior right on back to your evidence-less imaginary friend so you don't have to ever engage anyone in good faith, ever; we're all sinners and you're God's special child/saved and that's that. Actually, considering that, it might be a better idea if you just fuck right off. Go drop a turd in someone else's punch-bowl.