flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 127, 128, 129  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 955


sleepsleep wrote:
kill less idiots?

What's your score? Wink

Trying to be nice on the internet is pretty hard. People will always find a reason to complain about your behavior unless you're their "slave" and accept any bullshit they want or opinion. So I don't really care about being labeled that way Confused (I mean, most people define "nice" in a different way)


I just saw a scale of how large the largest Black Hole is, and this is after realizing just how massively huge the Solar System is, and made up almost of "empty" space. There's way too much space in the Universe. (note: all planets in the Solar System lined up near each other would barely reach the Moon -- and the Moon is extremely close to the Earth relative to the distance to, say, Neptune, so just imagine how much "empty" space there is, and that's just the Solar System which is nothing, intergalatic space is just mind-boggling).

But then I saw the largest observed Black Hole in the Universe. I have no words to describe just how big this thing is. I mean, empty space is one thing, but this thing is the densest thing in existence (black holes) and so incredibly big it's unreal. So just imagine how much matter there is in that spot if you think the Earth is a large place full of interesting spots. Fucks with your brain. Mind boggling.

Not sure if it's supposed to make me feel in awe, or just insignificant...
Post 01 Jan 2018, 14:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

there is a question mark there, most probably the score is zero and i haven't execute that task, Laughing

nice is quite depends on perspective, a kind act might turn up very negative if people perceive that as some sort of hypocrisy,

ya, the conscious i is so damn insignificant when compared to anything huge out there, maybe we should consider ourselves lucky when we are given the conscious to perceive those huge and giant mega black hole? maybe,

to aware how insignificant we are is always a great humble journey, is like facing a dead body,

for all the shits we been working so hard, and everybody evolve into unmovable object in the end, what a big joke,
Post 01 Jan 2018, 17:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

we seriously overestimate our capabilities to live and stay on earth as long as we wish,
Post 06 Jan 2018, 09:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

what you might read in the following might sounds really crazy, please press Ctrl + W if you dont want to continue, Smile

1. is it possible to process 1 and 0 without using electricity, in very nature and fast way?

2. assume we could transform our programs into a program and planted it / them in any kinds of plants and then let it grows till it meets our expectation,

3. someone called me for tea break, later, Laughing Laughing
Post 06 Jan 2018, 13:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 955

1) in a "fast" way, most likely no. I mean if by electricity you mean using "electromagnetic fields" directly (and not indirectly, like with mechanical stuff). Though you have to understand that every object uses EM at the atomic level; that's how you even "feel" objects when touching them. Even light is just EM radiation.

Computers are not that different in this physical sense than organisms. Your brain and all muscles are powered by and controlled by electrical signals, i.e. "electricitiy", respectively. Wink
Post 06 Jan 2018, 15:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

a dice shape light processor, assume we use a single face to hold that thing, we user the remaining 5 faces as input to process based on laser input that we received,



Furs wrote:
Computers are not that different in this physical sense than organisms. Your brain and all muscles are powered by and controlled by electrical signals, i.e. "electricitiy", respectively.


understood, but there should be alternative acceptable way to process 1/0 without using electricity, imo
Post 07 Jan 2018, 01:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yeohhs



Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 95
Location: N 5.43564° E 100.3091°


sleepsleep wrote:
...
understood, but there should be alternative acceptable way to process 1/0 without using electricity, imo



Yes. Biological computing. Very Happy


Quote:

Currently, biocomputers exist with various functional capabilities that include operations of "binary " logic and mathematical calculations.[5] Tom Knight of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory first suggested a biochemical computing scheme in which protein concentrations are used as binary signals that ultimately serve to perform logical operations.[4]:349 At or above a certain concentration of a particular biochemical product in a biocomputer chemical pathway indicates a signal that is either a 1 or a 0. A concentration below this level indicates the other, remaining signal.


_________________
I'm an INTJ aspie.
Post 07 Jan 2018, 03:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

consider human race future existential, the best license most likely is gnu gpl, and abolishment of monies,

what & which parties or groups are tasked to correct human ill-ing attitudes and behaviours?
Post 07 Jan 2018, 10:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

why must code and data, variables in a same address space? i dont get it, arent processor fasts enough to have one address space for code, another for data?
Post 07 Jan 2018, 11:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15379
Location: 77256 23rd Street


sleepsleep wrote:
why must code and data, variables in a same address space? i dont get it, arent processor fasts enough to have one address space for code, another for data?

Some systems do. It is known as Harvard Architecture.
Post 07 Jan 2018, 12:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 955


yeohhs wrote:
Yes. Biological computing. Very Happy

Don't chemical processes also rely on EM?

I guess sleepsleep is confused about "electricity" and he just wants a CPU that doesn't "plug into the wall" or something. Electricity is more than just a power outlet, it's one of the fields in physics. You can get it from solar power or whatever else; your brain gets it from whatever you eat I think.


sleepsleep wrote:
consider human race future existential, the best license most likely is gnu gpl, and abolishment of monies,

I disagree with the last part (abolishment of "monies"). Do you want people to trade objects to each other? That would be an absolute pain. Money is good, it's just the government-issued one that is bad. I'd want a world with cryptocurrencies ruling the exchanges of goods.


sleepsleep wrote:
what & which parties or groups are tasked to correct human ill-ing attitudes and behaviours?

Me.

(I wish Razz)

I used to argue with ford about capitalism, but he has some valid points which I agree with wholeheartedly. Socialism will never work without changes that some people hate for their retarded emotional reasons (yuck).

For example, in a world ruled mostly by AIs in the workforce, socialism will have to be implemented, but then you need restrictions on breeding. Just like with immortality (same principle). Humans must not be allowed to breed without permission from the central authority (which enables the socialist system in the first place -- i.e. government), end of story, no exceptions. I couldn't care less about emotional arguments in this respect (like those of YONG, btw I miss him Sad).

Look. Resources are finite. Expanding uncontrollably is virus behavior, not good, expansion must be done for exploration purposes, not for feeding your stupid kids because people can't control themselves and want more more more more more kids with finite resources. I don't want humanity associated with a trash virus.

Because resources are finite and a fixed amount, each person in a socialist system (with welfare) decreases the purchasing power of everyone else. It's like increasing the supply of money in circulation: current money will lose value, i.e. inflation.

More people, same resources, and if the new kid must be given welfare, everyone else loses. Whose decision is it to breed? Why must everyone else pay for that idiot's child cause he wanted to breed? This is why socialism will never work unless breeding is 100% controlled by the government. China did something similar in the past, and it being semi-socialist/communist, made perfect sense.

It must be authorized, in this case, for "usefulness" so that increasing the "supply" of humans will not diminish the value -- for example if the parents are well off and contributed a lot to society, they can be allowed (this is judged by the government).

If people don't like it they can opt out of welfare and live like in capitalism systems, then they can breed as much as they want (and have their children suffer in poverty if they have no money -- you don't deserve money if you are poor with 10 kids, nobody should be dragged down because of your decision to have kids when you can't sustain them -- look at Venezuela, prime example). This way nobody else is forced to pay for their stupid decisions and they'll have to earn money to sustain them themselves. As it should be. Don't fucking drag others down just because you "want a baby so bad". Disgusting. Adopt a damn child, there's so many orphans, do a good deed and stop breeding.

Don't agree with the government's authorizations of you breeding, then don't ask for its welfare, it's as simple as that really. Logic. Earn everything yourself.

Don't hate on capitalism: it is a good system because the alternative is worse right now, until humans learn to accept the fact that they MUST NOT be allowed to decide when to have offspring if they want to receive from the system (welfare, etc). Period.

I am sick of people who think they are entitled to stuff (as in "rights") and then demand from the government on top of that to give them "free stuff". I am sick of emotional arguments in logical debates, such as this one. I'm not talking about this board! I'm talking about real life debates. Politics.



EDIT: Unauthorized breeding revokes either the right to welfare or immortality of the parents -- or turns them into slaves in prison etc.

The child has no fault, he never asked to be born, but the parents do, so they have to pay the consequences. Giving welfare to the child doesn't increase the supply, it just gets transferred from the parents. Parents have to earn their life now, just like in capitalism, to continue on living. Their responsibility.

Simple solution. No headache. Logic in a world with finite resources, human population must be finite, and that's a fact. No amount of emotional bullshit will change facts.
Post 07 Jan 2018, 20:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yeohhs



Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 95
Location: N 5.43564° E 100.3091°


Furs wrote:

yeohhs wrote:
Yes. Biological computing. Very Happy

Don't chemical processes also rely on EM?



Yes. Smile

_________________
I'm an INTJ aspie.
Post 07 Jan 2018, 21:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Furs wrote:

sleepsleep wrote:
consider human race future existential, the best license most likely is gnu gpl, and abolishment of monies,

I disagree with the last part (abolishment of "monies"). Do you want people to trade objects to each other? That would be an absolute pain. Money is good, it's just the government-issued one that is bad. I'd want a world with cryptocurrencies ruling the exchanges of goods.



if you agree with the first part, logically you should agree with the last part, Smile
people dont have to trade objects, objects should be available freely to everyone, (it just there is a need to cultivate proper way to consume, utilize and input back those objects),

monies, the work related to monies, etc, they burden up more unnecessary human hours which barely (imo) attain significant results for human survival in long run.

resources (including human hours) are limited,

if the issue on hand is, people will steal and greedily try to possess more and more regardless of any ideas, then the solution is not to create the strongest vault or lock, somehow people will buy through it, hack it, and etc,

the solution is to educate those groups, drafting laws that actually set a limit on wealth possessed by a human, land area that could be possessed by a human, and etc,

education through method of threatening, eg. will lock you up, fine you, curse you in hell forever, if you do this and that, will break your arms and legs,

the idea of threatening is, you want to have result instantly, it means, you are too lazy and incapable to educate them - which mean, god is basically lazy and incapable too

threatening is : you want people to agree with you because they are scared of what you threaten to do if they dont agree with you,

i say it again, religion of god which threatened human with hell is lazy and incapable to educate,

yes, i miss YONG too, where is him now?

i will write about the breeding part later, breakfast calling, Laughing
take care all,
Post 08 Jan 2018, 02:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 955

Well the GNU GPL is not about free prices, but about freedom to use the software and source code. Someone can offer an application's source code under the GPL for money, but it must be available (and not too expensive, otherwise people would just set it at a billion dollars or so).

Also, software is different than "hardware" or objects, because software can be copied. Objects can't. So money is needed.

Think of money as owning "shares" in a company. Except you own shares in the "resources" that can't be copied. Wink (that's basically what money is)
Post 08 Jan 2018, 13:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Furs wrote:

because software can be copied. Objects can't. So money is needed.


i was in the assumption, people purposely make objects cant be copied, let me pose a question, is it possible to design object that could be copied and assembled?

a second thought is, we dont really need to copy everything, just ensure those essential stuffs are freely available for printing by everyone,

money is a backward concept, (seriously, think about it)

as you said resources are limited, is it the "pricing & monies" reason that actually support manufacturers to purposely produce under-powered things (which doesnt even reach a comfortable standard usage requirement)? how is this not equal to wasting resources?
Post 10 Jan 2018, 01:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

actually, what means by copy?
replication, clone, double, duplicate,
if we consider the size of our mother earth, with improved techniques and advancement in technology, i am quite convinced that, it is possible to have ample, sufficient productions to cater all population on earth.

issues only kicks in when certain parties want to dominate and control the distribution of resources in very unbalance way.

if viruses mean uncontrollable growth, then collecting personal wealth without ceiling is alike virus too,

monies is a tool that allow people having the power to possess something, having more equal to almost infinite power to control something, which certainly not a good news,

if you check on nature, eg, how many kilo of oxygen you could breath in one short, there is a limit, how far we could see, everything around us, have limit,

why no limit in personal wealth? or monies accumulation process?
Post 10 Jan 2018, 08:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

breeding,
having babies through sex or without sex, basically one ends up with kid / kids, babies,

afaik, babies usually come through act of sex, now is sex, an action that we human could control? assume the answer is no,

then i support the cause to add-in chemical stuffs in fast food to prevent women having babies, or turn off the male sperm capabilities,

the issue then is, who, what organization could have the mandate to task with this job?

since the dawn of human civilization, government already proven to be really corrupt, especially when they hold greater majority,

so what kind of mechanism is available, what kind of lucky draw people would participate in order to have babies?
Post 10 Jan 2018, 09:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

The Truth about Men, Women, and Sex
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/12/20595/


Quote:

Men. Many seem ready to jeopardize career, marriage, family, and reputation—all because of genital urges.


this, pretty much sums up the whole article,

and probably why it is hard to control breeding,
Post 10 Jan 2018, 14:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

in another side of topic,

i was thinking about programming language that defined by example, or pattern,

eg.
function f1 (10, Cool {
10 + 8 = 18
18 / 2 = 6
return 6
}
function f2 ( typewriter ) {
return TYPEWRITER
}
function f3 ( typewriter ) {
t = 1
type = 4
typewriter = 10
return 10
}
function f4 ( ant, bear, cat, dog) {
return dog, cat, bear, ant
}
function f5 ( ant, bear, cat, dog) {
ant = 1
bear = ant + 1
cat = bear + 1
dog = cat + 1
return dog
}
i am not sure how useful would such language could become,
Post 10 Jan 2018, 15:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 955


sleepsleep wrote:
money is a backward concept, (seriously, think about it)

It's not, unless you think ownership is a backward concept. Even if it was, money is still a good concept for a backward concept (i.e. it makes ownership less "painful" to deal with).


sleepsleep wrote:
as you said resources are limited, is it the "pricing & monies" reason that actually support manufacturers to purposely produce under-powered things (which doesnt even reach a comfortable standard usage requirement)? how is this not equal to wasting resources?

Uh, that doesn't have anything to do with money by itself. They'd do that even with no money, by trading for other products or services directly.

They would still design their products underpowered and to break so that they can ask for more services or stuff in return later when they'd give "newer" product. Money just makes the whole trading thing more convenient (which is not a bad thing).


sleepsleep wrote:
actually, what means by copy?
replication, clone, double, duplicate,
if we consider the size of our mother earth, with improved techniques and advancement in technology, i am quite convinced that, it is possible to have ample, sufficient productions to cater all population on earth.

issues only kicks in when certain parties want to dominate and control the distribution of resources in very unbalance way.

if viruses mean uncontrollable growth, then collecting personal wealth without ceiling is alike virus too,

monies is a tool that allow people having the power to possess something, having more equal to almost infinite power to control something, which certainly not a good news,

if you check on nature, eg, how many kilo of oxygen you could breath in one short, there is a limit, how far we could see, everything around us, have limit,

why no limit in personal wealth? or monies accumulation process?

There's not enough to cater to all populations on Earth, because people breed like rats and whine when you want to take it away from them. You need to stop thinking in terms of absolute wealth and think of relative wealth.

i.e. How many shares of the total amount of (useful) resources on Earth does a person have? That's what money is. It's like holding shares into useful resources (and services). The total amount of resources is finite. This is always the case.

Let's say you're a super rich guy who holds 70% of the resource shares (i.e. 70% of the money supply). You can sell these shares to people in return for their services or products or whatever (i.e. pay them with money). More or less, this is free market / capitalism.

However, socialism wants you to force you to give these shares to people and distribute them for nothing in return. This, by itself, doesn't sound like a bad idea. The problem is that every new person born will have you split this/divide the shares to more people. The more people there are born, the less everyone else gets from the total resource pool. Simple facts.

And who gets to decide how much you should split your shares into? In capitalism, you decide, as the sole owner of the shares.

In socialism, the state decides the rules only -- the other morons who breed like rats are ultimately who decides how the shares get distributed.

The point is that it is an arbitrary decision to breed and bring a new life on this world -- a decision that involves a selfish people decision. Why should I (or you) pay for their decision with our resource shares?

Why should everyone else suffer with less shares because a few morons decided to breed? They need to fuck off. Either that, or newborns get no special privileges or automatic shares, which is fine.

If people want to breed, they need to solely support their children not ask others to pay for THEIR OWN DECISIONS, or at least revoke their own shares to the child forcefully (it's not the child's fault he was born).


The point with copying is that resources that can be copied are not limited, or the supply can increase. Increasing the supply of resources and giving people free resources that were increased is fine because other people's resources aren't affected. It's only when you split up a finite amount of resources (say, 1000 resources) to more people that everyone else starts to lose.

Think about food. If food could be copied, nobody cares if you give free food to a new person. But if there's only 1 pizza in the entire house, and you split it with your family of 5, and then your neighbor comes and asks for a share of the pizza and you can't copy the pizza, everyone else in your family including yourself, ends up with LESS PIZZA because of your neighbor.

The more people you split something to, the less everyone else gets. When 2 idiots decide to breed and want "socialism", they want to force everyone else to GET LESS pizza so that their child (which is their OWN DECISION) gets a slice of the pizza.

No thanks.

The government needs to authorize it, so that when this happens and it's unauthorized, they lose their pizza and their child gets it. Now they have to earn their own pizza instead of asking EVERYONE ELSE to support their OWN DECISION TO BREED.

How about others forcefully donate shares to me for my own decisions too, huh?
Post 10 Jan 2018, 15:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 127, 128, 129  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2017, Tomasz Grysztar.