search results matching tag: compiled

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (1000)     Sift Talk (35)     Blogs (111)     Comments (1000)   

Have We Lost the Common Good?

newtboy says...

Aesop may be a myth, not a real person but a compilation of other storytellers and fabelists. It's not clear either way apparently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop
I believe it's likely a man named Jesus existed, largely as described, I just discount all the supernatural and religious stuff. Minus that, I agree with his basic teachings as I understand them.

What makes Aesop's fables objectively good imo is (as I remember them, it's been decades) they aren't self serving or selfish lessons, they are altruistic and civic minded lessons mostly, explaining how doing right for others is beneficial to all, including ones self in the long term even when not in the short term. To be sure, they aren't all about morality, but those that were (as I recall them) were good lessons all.

shinyblurry said:

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

Dear Satan

newtboy says...

There is no evidence whatsoever that he lived again, and barely anecdotal evidence that his body went missing.
You vastly overestimate the theories acceptance outside devout religious theological scholars.
It's not all nonsense, just the magic parts.

History. Constantine converted and compiled the bible to consolidate and grow his political powers.

Satan wrote and fulfilled the bible and prophecies to trick you, just like every other religion. See how that falls apart?

Verified "truth" is a fact demonstrable in the physical world.
I don't buy into isms.

No, they were clearly instructions to individuals, not government...please. Even accepting your view, it's still killing, so no one could carry out the governmental stoning imperative...catch 22, you defy god either way.

But, since I don't believe, I don't accept or reject him.

Ahhh, so he didn't die for the world, only his supporters, you say, with non supporters (mostly tricked thorough no fault of their own) getting eternal torture. Diabolical, monstrous in fact.

Only like cancer that only exists when you believe it does.

I do those things for myself, it's working fine and I take responsibility for myself. I would suggest if Jesus worked as you say, to perfection, no Christian would ever be depressed or do wrong, they would be perfect people without problems....1)what about when you/they don't behave perfectly, is Jesus busy?

If there was zero law enforcement on earth and no vigilantes, it would be like that.

A sign, like the cardboard sign the driver's holding? Yep.

I might get in the car out of curiosity, but wouldn't just accept that coincidence or mental implantation means divinity. I would think it's likely I'm being visited by ET, who would be easily mistaken for gods by believers.

2)Again, I must ask, if you know he has that power of personal revelation, but chose to not use it, why would you defy your own God's wishes to try to convert others? Maybe he needs us heathens to be heathens.

shinyblurry said:

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

There is a lot of scholarly research that says it is historical,

"Call to a member function query() on null" errors. (Wtf Talk Post)

Spinning go kart kid Vs Shooting star meme

Tabs v(ersu)s Spaces from Silicon Valley S3E6

MilkmanDan says...

(**EDIT** hmm, code HTML tag doesn't seem to allow whitespace to show at the beginning of lines, so I'm replacing spaces with _underscores_ in the pseudocode below)

Code uses spaces or tabs to visually distinguish the flow of the program, what code belongs to what functions / loops / whatever.

Here's some C-style "pseudocode" that should get the idea across:

void function fizzbuzz {
__for (i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
____set print_number to true;
____If i is divisible by 3
______print "Fizz";
______set print_number to false;
____If i is divisible by 5
______print "Buzz";
______set print_number to false;
____If print_number, print i;
____print a newline;
__}
}


The braces { } show the beginning and ending of a "function" (essentially one of potentially many self-contained algorithms in a program) and the beginning and ending of a "for loop" (that will repeat the code inside it some number of times). And the "if" statements will only perform the stuff after them IF the test they perform evaluates to true.

So in that pseudocode, there's sort of 4 tiers or things going on. First is the function (named "fizzbuzz"). Since functions are kind of the most basic structural unit of the code, they are on the far left -- not indented at all. Sorta like Roman Numerals in an outline.

Then, the actual content of that function (the code that makes up its algorithm) is set a consistent amount of space to the right to make it clear that it is contained inside the function. That can be done with *1* tab, or some consistent amount of spaces so that it lines up. The only thing in that tier is the "for loop" and the braces that show its beginning and end.

Then the content of the for loop is set a bit further to the right (with another space or another set number of spaces). All of the "if" statements are at that 3rd tier level, along with a bit more code at the beginning and end. Then, the actual content of the if statements is set one more tier to the right to help distinguish that it will only run IF the conditions are met.

That pseudocode uses spaces for all of the tiering -- 2 spaces per tier. I'm a tab person like the guy Richard in the video, because it seems easier to press tab once per tier than hitting the spacebar 2/3/4 times per tier. But it really is just a personal preference issue, because as he said in the video, by the time the code is compiled (turned into an executable file that the computer can run) the final result will be the same whether the programmer used spaces or tabs.

But like with many things, Silicon Valley really hits the nail on the head here. Programmers tend to be very set in their ways and anal about their style preferences for code. If we have to go through someone else's code that doesn't follow our style conventions exactly, it kinda tends to throw us out of whack. To make an analogy with something less nerdy, consider how annoying it can be when someone borrows your car and you have to adjust the seat / mirrors / radio stations etc. when you get back in.

eric3579 said:

Don't think i've ever used a tab outside filling in a form or playing video games. Does the tab thing have more to do with writing code?

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

harlequinn says...

The bible wasn't written as a book. It is a compilation of discrete articles, written at different times, in different places, by different authors, that are venerated by the church.

Importantly, as I explained above, the Orthodox church (the original church) and the Catholic church (the first schism) have a written and oral Tradition that outlines the meaning of everything (specifically to avoid this situation).

ToastyBuffoon said:

I love the rationale that it doesn't matter what one verse says, because this other verse counters the first. So if I understand, the Bible was written for you to just pick and choose the parts you like?

How Disney uses Language in Animated Films

vil says...

Disney are actually using the music and the lyrics to have the desired specific emotional effect on their musically and geographically poorly informed audience. Specific languages are present not for accuracy or making sense, purely for cinematic effect. It is much easier to use a real language and real obscure culture references than trying to come up with something original, like Klingon. Correct use of a specific language or musical reference is probably just an inside joke. Everything Disney does is cultural appropriation, that is their day job. They dont do documentaries, they are into compiled rehashed fairytales. If that one song was PC it was probably done that way on purpose, decided by Disneys equal opportunities department. A proper Inuit movie would have to be shot from an Inuit script with an Inuit score drawn by real Inuit men on Inuit snow in the only possible way you can draw while your fingers are freezing.

ant (Member Profile)

Why Did Steve Jobs Die?

newtboy says...

So...you claim to have peer reviewed, published studies that actually say plant based vegan diets CURE this type of cancer and provide enough useable, quality proteins for people with his condition? I seriously doubt that, but feel free to produce away, but if I read them and find that they don't say any such thing (like the last time I spent my time debunking this guy), or aren't really scientific studies, be ready to be called a liar any time you post more claims without them being reviewed as a reward for wasting my time and efforts....again.

Wait....you see I won't accept non published, non peer reviewed studies because they aren't scientific, so instead you offer a webpage about random people's compiled anecdotes about weight LOSS from vegan diets, the exact opposite of the claim being discussed? There was only one cancer story on the whole page of anecdotes, totally unscientific, in which the woman had surgery and treatments then later went vegan and claimed it "cured" her, but she seems to have stopped checking so doesn't really even know if she still has it and certainly couldn't say what 'cured' it...and every story there is really just an add for his books. WTF man?

I never said some people can't benefit from plant based, or even vegan diets (although that's incredibly difficult and expensive long term, as proven by Jobs who couldn't benefit from the most expensive, highest quality plant proteins available.). I said it usually can't provide the protein normal people need to be healthy, much less the excessive protein needed with his condition, which was absolutely PROVEN because it completely failed to do so and eventually even he gave up...just far too late.
Plant based diets VS processed food based diets usually will help with weight loss (what almost all the anecdotes were about) and most people can benefit from the weight loss alone, no matter how it comes. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the topic of curing cancer or Jobs condition.
Face====>palm

transmorpher said:

You're already assuming the studies I'm going to quote ones that aren't peer reviewed - which all published studies are. This is why I'm not going to bother, because we've been down this road before.

So perhaps you'd do better with anecdotes like this: https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/
Are all of these people lying about getting off their meds?

Jim Jefferies tells Piers Morgan to Fuck Off

Chairman_woo says...

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

CNN caught reporting fake news on russian hack

newtboy says...

No, I don't deny that intelligence reports have been misused repeatedly by dems and reps historically, and horrifically.

No sir...the Bush administration edited multiple reports to lie about what the intelligence community had reported.

I know little about the lies about Vietnam, but would not be surprised to find the same MO by different parties. Please keep in mind that the appointed leaders of these organizations are often at odds with the politically diverse communities they oversee, and often rewrite official reports to reflect their bias...which I gather is what is being implied with this report without seeing the full classified version that allegedly contains the missing proof. It's a bit odd to make that conclusion, though, considering how firmly right wing the head of the FBI has proven himself to be, you would think he would not sign off if it weren't undeniable.

Well, the public report was compiled from 17 different agencies without dissent, and made clear that there is classified evidence to back up their assertions. That sure sounds like "multiple intelligence sources".

What does "actively hacked our election" mean? Only hacking voting machines and counting machines? It seems they tried, but failed or decided against it. If hacking the DNC and Clinton counts, it's not certain beyond doubt, but is certain beyond reasonable doubt with zero evidence to the contrary, imo.

Yes, but have we seen such public statements from so many agencies combined without dissent? Governments lie, intelligence reports lie, news lies, pundits lie, but usually not en masse with such consistency.

enoch said:

^

Obamacare in Trump Country

newtboy says...

That site is conservative run and compiled, and even so, just do the math, divide by population. Start with Alaska, firmly red.
But, much better, look at REAL numbers instead of that rabid Trump supporter's totally unverified numbers, these with the math already done for you at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

California spends $8,967 per person while taxing $7690 (honestly worse than I thought),
New York spends $9,940 and taxes $10,279.27,

Alabama spends $11,743 taxes $4,330,
Alaska spends $14,375 taxes $6,697 (I think only DC is worse),
Arizona spends $10,157 taxes $5,318,
Arkansas spends $9,635 taxes $8,578
(and because you mentioned them, Texas which spends $8,865 and taxes $8,421.59, not so bad)

....and that's just comparing the A's to what you would expect to be the most social service friendly firmly democrat states. Clearly, looked at per capita (the only way it makes sense) red states take far more than they give on average, then complain that they're supporting the inner city with their farm taxes, it's just not correct.

EDIT: and as mentioned above, I also know Texas, and the country folk are just as big welfare queens as the city folk, they just convince themselves that a corn subsidy isn't welfare, putting some pet goats on the property so you don't pay taxes isn't welfare, getting free water for their crops paid for by the government isn't welfare....it's just bullshit. If you take what you don't need, or don't pay your fair share, you're a taker, and that describes a HUGE portion of the right....largely your country folks.

worm said:

Not that I doubt your old-timey anecdotal evidence either (since you failed to actually POINT to evidence). A simple google pulled up this:

[url redacted]Ugh - Nevermind. I see we can't post links.
www usgovernmentspending com / compare_state_spending_2016b40a
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2016b40a

Hmmmm.... California and New York, followed by Texas.

Now I haven't been able to find a welfare spending by County yet in Texas, but I would be willing to BET that the majority of that is in the major metropolitan areas, which happen to also be quite blue... I wouldn't be surprised if that were true in New York and California too, but I don't know those people like I know Texas.

Bill Nye tours the Ark Encounter

newtboy says...

No sir, Bill starts with the belief that the scientific method is the best method for finding fact....much better than fables older than they claim the earth is. His belief has verifiable evidence you can see and reproduce, Ham's has impossible fables about magic no one alive has ever witnessed told third hand or more, compiled and edited by a ruler with the sole goal being solidifying political control.

It seems he's forgotten his religious responsibility to care for the planet and creation.

Why would it matter if you're going to die? Because some people find things outside themselves to be important, and care what happens to those that come after them...clearly they don't matter a whit to Mr Ham after he's moved on.

It's crazy to have an intellectual discussion with someone that refuses to utilize their intellect.

Tree rings aren't evidence? But fables are? WTF, man?

How would Ham prove 100% that his insane beliefs are correct? He clearly can't.

The problem with religion, it can't ever admit it's wrong at all, so it can't adapt to new information. When it's proven wrong, they MUST deny the proof, leading to denial of fact and science, leading to idiots like this.

enoch (Member Profile)

Timonf (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon