There's been all this talk about making Linux easier for human beings (see: Ubuntu) for quite a long time now. Unfortunately, this will probably never happen. This isn't the distro maker's fault; rather, it's the kernel's fault. There may be hope, however. I certainly hope so.
Before I continue, let me make a note: when I say ABI, I don't mean the userland ABI. That's actually very stable, and wisely so. I mean the kernel ABI, what drivers and whatnot are targeted for.
The main problem with the Linux kernel is that it has always been a notoriously fast-moving target. There are frequently ABI-breaking changes in the kernel due to "improvements". The maintainers like to say this is a good thing. They claim that it allows rapid improvement in interfaces. They also make the further bold claim that "you don't want a stable ABI," which has brought me endless hours of laughing.
There's a few problems with constantly changing the ABI, but the biggest one is that third-party drivers have to keep up. Hardware vendors don't want to spend money to constantly keep up. Thus, they avoid Linux like the plague, or when they do write drivers, they tend to be unusable in just a few kernel releases.
The kernel maintainers rant about how these vendors "leech." Although yes, companies which make their specifications open are very nice, and companies who want to work with kernel maintainers are too, not all vendors are like this. It's unfortunate, but it's true. And surely as the sun shines, there will always be vendors who are unwilling (or even unable) to release their specifications or cooperate to make open-source drivers.
In my opinion, the real agenda behind having an unstable ABI is because of "those stubborn vendors." The kernel people want to "enlighten" the vendors, and show them what they think is the right way of doing things. They are going about it in completely the wrong way, though. The only thing they are achieving is making Linux an inferior platform due to lack of driver support, or inferior due to flaky drivers.
However, there would be a shining light: a stable ABI. An ABI which changes very little over time, or at least provides for backwards compatiblity. Microsoft surprisingly has the right idea about this. Your Windows 2000 drivers, for example, are almost certain to work on Windows Vista or even Windows 7, despite being 9 years old.
This shining light doesn't exist in Linux, though.
I would love to see someone try that with Linux in its current state. Often, third party drivers break each kernel release. Either the vendors catch up (which means spending more money in programmer resources and the like), or they get left behind. This means users are usually either stuck on old kernels, unable to upgrade to the latest and greatest, or they're stuck with a possibly vulnerable kernel.
Some would say reverse engineering solves this problem. Reverse engineering, however, is a difficult task to do, and reverse engineered drivers almost always lack the full functionality of a binary driver. Inferior drivers means that users are likely to just stick with Windows, where their hardware (usually) Just Works(TM). There is also a small risk the vendor could sue over this (it has happened before a few times, although I can't list specific cases right now).
Many would argue Linux already supports most hardware. This is only partially true. There are still gaping holes in many areas; for example, TV tuner card support is still extremely flaky, even with the Brooktree Bt878-based cards. Web cam support also tends to be a very sore spot. Graphics cards are a bit better than they used to be (especially with Intel (well, Intel tends to be crap no matter what), ATI, and Nvidia; the top 3 really); however, the kernel guys are making it harder than it has to be for them to support their hardware. New hardware support also usually tends to come slowly.
Most of these problems could be solved by making the ABI to the kernel mostly stable, or at least providing backwards compatibility. A stable ABI means that vendors don't have to chase a moving target, and that vendors can make binary drivers with minimal effort (and have them work for a long time to come).
This is only a dream though.
A possible solution would be a kernel-space library that implements a stable ABI for vendors to build their drivers on. This library would "chase" kernel development, keeping up with recent changes, while keeping "forward-facing" compatibilty the best it can. Maybe someday someone will do this; I doubt it, though.
15 April, 2009
14 April, 2009
Takeover of the blunt knife
GreaseMonkey's decided to go on to greener pastures, so I'm taking over this blog. But first, an introduction.
I'm Jacob Myers, aka Spaz. I'm 18 and live in Florida. I'm obviously male (if you know a girl named Jacob I would be most curious to meet her). I already have a blog on blogspot.
Now, you may be wondering what rants you'll expect from this change of management. Me and GreaseMonkey both share similar thoughts on things, with two big changes: I'm atheist, and I'm far more liberal. Although I'm not the type of atheist GreaseMonkey rants about, do be aware that you won't see anymore religious rants (with the exception of perhaps real cults or radical ${religion}ists). As for me being more liberal, well, this means I'll might rant on things like the second amendment or how capitalism sucks (although I try to avoid sensitive issues).
Anyways, hope you enjoy whatever I have in store. Also, I'm keeping GreaseMonkey around as an author, so you may or may not see an occasional rant from him.
I'm Jacob Myers, aka Spaz. I'm 18 and live in Florida. I'm obviously male (if you know a girl named Jacob I would be most curious to meet her). I already have a blog on blogspot.
Now, you may be wondering what rants you'll expect from this change of management. Me and GreaseMonkey both share similar thoughts on things, with two big changes: I'm atheist, and I'm far more liberal. Although I'm not the type of atheist GreaseMonkey rants about, do be aware that you won't see anymore religious rants (with the exception of perhaps real cults or radical ${religion}ists). As for me being more liberal, well, this means I'll might rant on things like the second amendment or how capitalism sucks (although I try to avoid sensitive issues).
Anyways, hope you enjoy whatever I have in store. Also, I'm keeping GreaseMonkey around as an author, so you may or may not see an occasional rant from him.
13 April, 2009
End of an era: I'll try something a little nicer.
I'm going to stop doing my rants on this blog now.
Why? I'm not exactly achieving anything by flaming everyone, am I? I'm aiming with the help of God* to be less ANGRGRY HURRRRR and to allocate some time to think. Yes, I am human, and I still get pissed off, but I'll try and let my anger evaporate.
* Just in case you haven't established already, I am a Christian. Captain Obvious to the rescue (I hope).
If there's something which frustrates me, I'll probably look at it without saying fuck every 10 seconds.
Uh, just something to ponder (this is my MSN status message at the time of writing):
I deleted a bunch of copyright violating stuff because I finally can (I got bogged up with nerves the last few times I tried). Not that this makes me look good, but that I finally can get some crap sorted once and for all, instead of being pulled by my own selfish earthly desires. Those of you who think atheism gives you free will: it doesn't. It just binds you to your selfish earthly desires, and you find that your body doesn't do what you want it to.
Watch this space... and oh crap, it's 10pm.
I need a name for a new blog. Any ideas?
Update: This is the new blog. Enjoy.
Why? I'm not exactly achieving anything by flaming everyone, am I? I'm aiming with the help of God* to be less ANGRGRY HURRRRR and to allocate some time to think. Yes, I am human, and I still get pissed off, but I'll try and let my anger evaporate.
* Just in case you haven't established already, I am a Christian. Captain Obvious to the rescue (I hope).
If there's something which frustrates me, I'll probably look at it without saying fuck every 10 seconds.
Uh, just something to ponder (this is my MSN status message at the time of writing):
Easter 2009: A girl who went to the easter camp I went to this year had broke her glasses on Saturday. Her eyesight was so bad that her glasses needed 3 lenses. The next morning, her friends prayed for her, that God would heal her eyesight. She opened her eyes and... it was still fuzzy. But a while later, she went back to her tent, and her friend gave her a book to read.Yeah, I went to an easter camp this Easter weekend and I think I've finally actually found God. I mean properly this time. As in, I gave him control and stuff like that.
She could read it.
I deleted a bunch of copyright violating stuff because I finally can (I got bogged up with nerves the last few times I tried). Not that this makes me look good, but that I finally can get some crap sorted once and for all, instead of being pulled by my own selfish earthly desires. Those of you who think atheism gives you free will: it doesn't. It just binds you to your selfish earthly desires, and you find that your body doesn't do what you want it to.
Watch this space... and oh crap, it's 10pm.
I need a name for a new blog. Any ideas?
Update: This is the new blog. Enjoy.
07 April, 2009
Hilbert hotel paradox: Makes sense to me.
Note: This isn't really a rant, just something I was thinking of.
The Hilbert hotel paradox, AKA "Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel," goes as follows:
Suppose there is a hotel with infinitely many rooms, and each of them are full. Now, some guests would like to stay at that hotel. How can you allocate rooms for them?
Well, it's doable. Confused? If not, you probably know this already.
Let there be a function f: N -> N, where N is the natural numbers starting from 1, that is:
N = {1, 2, 3, ..., x}, where x converges to infinity (note: this is the only time x is defined this way).
Let g be the inverse of function f, so g: N -> N, and g(f(x)) = x.
So, how do we allocate a room? Let's say there are n new guests, where n is a finite natural number, and n > 1. We move the guests along n rooms, so the guest in room 1 goes to room (1 + n), the guest in room 2 goes to room (2 + n), and so on. By the end of it, the rooms from 1 to n inclusive are free for the n guests staying.
Here's the math behind it:
f(x) = x + n
g(x) has to reverse this operation...
g(x) + n = x
g(x) = x - n
Yay. Now, we can feed any natural number into g(f(x)), and this happens...
g(f(x)) = g(x + n) = x + n - n = x.
Now, what happens when we feed a number from 1 to n inclusive into g(x)?
g(1) = 1 - n
If there were more than 0 guests, this would be less than 1, which is not in the set N.
Here's the next bit:
g(n) = n - n = 0
0 is not in the set N.
Now, what the hell did I just say?
The thing with infinity is that it has this weird property, that given any real, finite number x, infinity + x = infinity (x can be negative), so f(infinity) = infinity, and g(infinity) = infinity, which just happens to be in the set N. Yay, no-one gets shoved out! Woo!
So everything is fine and dandy, until infinite guests try to stay at the hotel...
Crap.
We will need a new f: N -> N, and a new g: N -> N to be the inverse.
The trick to this is to make everyone go to the room with the number which is double the room number of the room that they were staying in. So, the guest in room 1 goes to room 2, the guest in room 2 goes to room 4, 3 to 6, and so on, going on forever.
Let's define a function! Yay! I like functions!
f(x) = 2x
And let's define g(x)...
2g(x) = x
g(x) = x/2
Now, given any number x in the set N, we get something happening like this:
g(2x - 1) = (2x - 1) / 2 = x - 1/2.
x is a natural number. When we subtract 1/2, which is not a natural number, we get a number which is not a natural number, and so it doesn't appear in N. Let's try x = 1:
2*1 - 1 = 2 - 1 = 1
g(1) = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2.
This would imply that the guest who moved into room 1 originally came from room 1/2, which does not exist, so the guest does not exist, so room 1 is empty. Seeing as x just keeps on going and going onto infinity, we can shove infinitely many people in...
Now, let's try this, which exposes another weird thing about infinity, as far as I know:
f(infinity) = 2 * infinity = infinity.
2 is not negative, so we don't end up at -infinity, just infinity.
Hey! Infinity is inside the set N! We can just keep on going, and going... and no-one gets shoved out! Brilliantastic!
Anyways, I'm kinda hoping that made sense, as infinity is really weird, but apparently you can shove infinitely many people in a hotel with infinite rooms where each of the rooms are full, and they will still fit.
EDIT: Well, apparently not all the time. Suppose there are infinitely many groups of infinitely many guests each. Apparently this system will break. I highly recommend you read this story.
Let r be the number of groups of infinite guests. Now, to move them along...
f(x) = (r + 1)x
And for our inverse, which we probably won't need...
(r + 1)g(x) = x
g(x) = x / (r + 1)
r is infinity, so:
f(x) = (infinity + 1)x = infinity * x = infinity.
So, nobody ever settles down, as everyone ends up in the same damn room.
Now let's use the inverse, just for kicks, as we've already proven that nobody can get a room:
g(x) = x / (infinity + 1) = x / infinity = infinitesimal (infinity ^ -1, or 1 / infinity). This is not part of the set. So nobody came from any room given, which is a complete cock-up.
There you have it; we just broke the hotel.
EDIT 2: If you have a hotel with infinitely many buildings, each building containing infinitely many rooms...
f: (N, N) -> (N, N)
g: (N, N) -> (N, N)
f((x, r)) = (2x, 2r)
g((x, r)) = (x/2, r/2)
g((2x - 1, 2r - 1)) = (x - 1/2, r - 1/2) which each entry is not in the set N.
Theorerically, infinity * infinity = infinity^2, as there are more dimensions to infinity. Or something like that.
Of course, you can break this hotel by sending infinitely many groups of infinitely many groups of infinitely many guests, which can be fixed by... well, you get the point.
EDIT 3: Apparently I'm kinda wrong in some respect. Hopefully this sets it right...
EDIT 4 (how many of these damn things do I need?!): Here's a link about this subject which was recommended by the James mentioned in that last edit.
The Hilbert hotel paradox, AKA "Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel," goes as follows:
Suppose there is a hotel with infinitely many rooms, and each of them are full. Now, some guests would like to stay at that hotel. How can you allocate rooms for them?
Well, it's doable. Confused? If not, you probably know this already.
Let there be a function f: N -> N, where N is the natural numbers starting from 1, that is:
N = {1, 2, 3, ..., x}, where x converges to infinity (note: this is the only time x is defined this way).
Let g be the inverse of function f, so g: N -> N, and g(f(x)) = x.
So, how do we allocate a room? Let's say there are n new guests, where n is a finite natural number, and n > 1. We move the guests along n rooms, so the guest in room 1 goes to room (1 + n), the guest in room 2 goes to room (2 + n), and so on. By the end of it, the rooms from 1 to n inclusive are free for the n guests staying.
Here's the math behind it:
f(x) = x + n
g(x) has to reverse this operation...
g(x) + n = x
g(x) = x - n
Yay. Now, we can feed any natural number into g(f(x)), and this happens...
g(f(x)) = g(x + n) = x + n - n = x.
Now, what happens when we feed a number from 1 to n inclusive into g(x)?
g(1) = 1 - n
If there were more than 0 guests, this would be less than 1, which is not in the set N.
Here's the next bit:
g(n) = n - n = 0
0 is not in the set N.
Now, what the hell did I just say?
- The person entering room n would have had to originally be from room 0, which does not exist, therefore the person could not exist, therefore room n would end up empty.
- Room -1 does not exist either, and same can be said for any negative integer.
- As n > 1, room 1 - n does not exist either... and so on. It turns out that there are n rooms free.
The thing with infinity is that it has this weird property, that given any real, finite number x, infinity + x = infinity (x can be negative), so f(infinity) = infinity, and g(infinity) = infinity, which just happens to be in the set N. Yay, no-one gets shoved out! Woo!
So everything is fine and dandy, until infinite guests try to stay at the hotel...
Crap.
We will need a new f: N -> N, and a new g: N -> N to be the inverse.
The trick to this is to make everyone go to the room with the number which is double the room number of the room that they were staying in. So, the guest in room 1 goes to room 2, the guest in room 2 goes to room 4, 3 to 6, and so on, going on forever.
Let's define a function! Yay! I like functions!
f(x) = 2x
And let's define g(x)...
2g(x) = x
g(x) = x/2
Now, given any number x in the set N, we get something happening like this:
g(2x - 1) = (2x - 1) / 2 = x - 1/2.
x is a natural number. When we subtract 1/2, which is not a natural number, we get a number which is not a natural number, and so it doesn't appear in N. Let's try x = 1:
2*1 - 1 = 2 - 1 = 1
g(1) = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2.
This would imply that the guest who moved into room 1 originally came from room 1/2, which does not exist, so the guest does not exist, so room 1 is empty. Seeing as x just keeps on going and going onto infinity, we can shove infinitely many people in...
Now, let's try this, which exposes another weird thing about infinity, as far as I know:
f(infinity) = 2 * infinity = infinity.
2 is not negative, so we don't end up at -infinity, just infinity.
Hey! Infinity is inside the set N! We can just keep on going, and going... and no-one gets shoved out! Brilliantastic!
Anyways, I'm kinda hoping that made sense, as infinity is really weird, but apparently you can shove infinitely many people in a hotel with infinite rooms where each of the rooms are full, and they will still fit.
EDIT: Well, apparently not all the time. Suppose there are infinitely many groups of infinitely many guests each. Apparently this system will break. I highly recommend you read this story.
Let r be the number of groups of infinite guests. Now, to move them along...
f(x) = (r + 1)x
And for our inverse, which we probably won't need...
(r + 1)g(x) = x
g(x) = x / (r + 1)
r is infinity, so:
f(x) = (infinity + 1)x = infinity * x = infinity.
So, nobody ever settles down, as everyone ends up in the same damn room.
Now let's use the inverse, just for kicks, as we've already proven that nobody can get a room:
g(x) = x / (infinity + 1) = x / infinity = infinitesimal (infinity ^ -1, or 1 / infinity). This is not part of the set. So nobody came from any room given, which is a complete cock-up.
There you have it; we just broke the hotel.
EDIT 2: If you have a hotel with infinitely many buildings, each building containing infinitely many rooms...
f: (N, N) -> (N, N)
g: (N, N) -> (N, N)
f((x, r)) = (2x, 2r)
g((x, r)) = (x/2, r/2)
g((2x - 1, 2r - 1)) = (x - 1/2, r - 1/2) which each entry is not in the set N.
Theorerically, infinity * infinity = infinity^2, as there are more dimensions to infinity. Or something like that.
Of course, you can break this hotel by sending infinitely many groups of infinitely many groups of infinitely many guests, which can be fixed by... well, you get the point.
EDIT 3: Apparently I'm kinda wrong in some respect. Hopefully this sets it right...
<@James> You can break the hotel by sending infinitely many groups of infinite guestsUh, yeah.
<@James> Just not for the reasons you stated
<@James> The way it works is that you've got your infinite number of rooms, each numbered with a natural number
<@James> And you've got an infinite number of busses, each numbered with a natural number
<@James> But the infinite number of guests have to be written as real numbers for each bus
<@James> i.e.: bus 1, guest 049349013745718234078104378314739028478025780437589205...
<@James> which would be 1.049349013745718234078104378314739028478025780437589205...
EDIT 4 (how many of these damn things do I need?!): Here's a link about this subject which was recommended by the James mentioned in that last edit.
30 March, 2009
Atheists trolls on, e.g., Youtube: I'm not the stupid brainwashed one.
This is taking a stab at the Atheists who post comments on Youtube thinking that they're ever so fucking right about them being epically fucking awesome. Thing is, if you think you're really epically fucking awesome, you're not, but if you still think so, which you probably do, then KEEP ON READING, OK? Don't just chicken out just because I'm shaking your trolling foundations.
A proper Christian would never be that bad (note the emphasis on the word "proper"). And by "that bad", I mean this:
Let me kindly point out that in 1976, a group of Russian scientists managed to work out that the Sun was a very young star and could not be more than 7,500 years old [citation given].
Let me also kindly point out that we have a bunch of fucking trolls who don't know how to read articles properly or edit them properly [link]. Let's take a look, after a reasonable amount (in your terminology, more than tons) of evidence pointing towards creationism:
Woo. I close my eyes, and my keyboard and screen do not exist because I can't see them.
What the fuck. I just typed that with my eyes closed and it came out perfectly, and no, I do not have spellcheck (well, an automatic one, anyway, and I didn't use it on that sentence, you have my word). I suprise myself sometimes when I do that and it all feels wrong but comes out exactly as I wanted it to.
Don't forget that the conclusion was already given. After all, I can prank-edit a wiki better than you can edit one normally (I only did this once, by the way). Have a look at that link. Note how I've incorporated it into the text, rather than placing a statement contradicting both the text and the feel of the text.
Who would be to blame for that atrocity (sp?) ?
OK, now, I was trying to look for a particular page about written records only dating back to something like 3000 BC, but stumbled across that WikiAnswers page instead, so I'll put that here instead:
Also, why the fuck would someone wait for about 95,000 years before coming up with a language? Seriously, are you fucking blind, et cetera...
Now, those of you who say that the Bible is bullshit (Yay, we get to bring the Bible into this! Oh, goody! Now this post gets really offensive!) obviously don't agree with any of these passages (quoted from my GNB/TEV)...
If you still think I'm stupid... Oh look! I did research! I suppose that's a new concept for you. And not from just one source, and not 100% Christian resources (most of them kinda are). On top of that, I could cite some stuff from the Bible, too, which is true even today. Looking back at Proverbs 26:16: "A lazy person will think he is more intelligent than seven people who can give good reasons for their opinions." If you're sure you're smarter than me, and feel certain that there is no God, you're living proof of this.
After all, I didn't say "If you think you're smarter than me". Read it again. And I'm not saying you're right, either.
The fact of the matter is that I at least did some research, and I'm still not going to be blatantly certain.
And now I'm going to explain why the Big Rip is a crock of shit.
Big rip theory goes something like this: Some time in the 1980s, someone spots a supernova somewhere, "scientists" "calculate" the distance and "find" that it's a ridiculous amount of light years away, they use their previous "calculations" and "work out" that the universe "is" expanding at an exponential rate.
But for this to be continuous and consistent, there would not be a Big Bang®, and all the matter and the energy of the universe would have always been there (read: it'd be infinite), very early on barely moving, then it would start burning up, and once all the potential energy has been used up, for it to continue, it would have to violate the laws of thermodynamics, which you guys just love doing.
If the Big Rip is true, then NO IT DID NOT FUCKING "START" AT ZERO. Allow me to demonstrate.
The formula for any exponential trend is:
y = Ae^(kx)
k affects the rate, and A affects the amplitude. When taking a trend, these are constants, meaning they don't change.
When does y equal zero? Two possibilities, perhaps?
One possibility: A was zero all along. Which means that y is always zero. However, the size of the universe isn't zero, is it? Of course not. So, one possibility left.
We will have to find x ourselves.
y/A = e^(kx)
ln(y/A) = kx
(ln(y) - ln(A)) / k = x
Set y to zero, and we get:
x = (-∞ - ln(A)) / k
x = (-∞) / k
x = -∞
Infinity tends to engulf finite numbers. No shit. Really, you're not going to reach infinity, are you? Try it now. Go on, get infinitely away from me. Didn't work, did it?
Two things:
So an exponential curve is not appropriate for this model.
I propose that, if evolution is to be believed, then we'd have a sine curve. Or maybe we have a sigmoid?
Always remember: math and logic are necessary for science to work. If it fucks up logically, and/or fucks up mathematically, it ought to fuck up scientifically, too.
I don't see any reason for the universe to continue expanding as gravity is all around us, and the universe would be slowing down due to the gravity, resulting in a Big Crunch.
Oops. Apparently this phenomenon is called the Big Bounce. My bad. The Big Crunch is really shitty in terms of evolution.
Please take the time to remind yourself that I don't actually believe in any of this shit, I'm just pointing out how shitty the Big Rip is in comparison with some of the other shit I don't believe. Don't believe me? Read on.
The problem with the Big Bounce is that some of that energy escapes as heat and other shit you can't use due to friction, where the energy escapes as heat. For matter and energy to be infinite, due to friction, it would have to end at some point (the Big Crunch), and before that lead to infinite chaos. Heck, even your "scientists" don't like the idea of an oscillating universe, according to Wikipedia:
So, uh... I think the concept of the Big Bang is fucked, especially when the current "scientific" theory points to there being a beginning...
At first, there was nothing. Which exploded.
That's what they're saying.
Whereas "my" proposal is that there was some intelligent entity which was always there and able to create stuff, designing and creating our universe out of its imagination. What we know about this theory is that some things were made in an order which actually works, no shit. Although it would be very interesting to know a more elaborate version of the story we have. But it still wouldn't make people like you shut the fuck up, would it? No, you're too selfish to accept responsibility.
I really can't be fucked with this post anymore, so, uh, yeah, time for me to conclude:
Yes we do have evidence supporting our claims which, in turn, pisses on yours. Don't say that we have no evidence, or else you'll lose credibility. Otherwise, your water would be much saltier, you'll be much more scorched, and you'll be walking on spikes. Oh yeah, and you wouldn't know anything about that Halley guy.
Why am I still a Christian? Because it seems to work, and if Atheists were correct, life would suck, as we'd have no free will. I haven't even covered souls yet. When I get a "message from God", I don't merely imagine it, I actually see something which would slip past the minds of most, e.g. 1317. I actually have photos showing both parts of the context. Yet I don't use just this to say "Aha! There's definitely a God!"
I haven't even gone into why you, and not me, are the "brainwashed" ones. This should at least begin to explain it, if you'd like to skip the bit where they're showing stuff on TV, then go for it. I may cover that later, when I'm not so tired.
So, uh, yeah, first post in a while, and stuff.
A proper Christian would never be that bad (note the emphasis on the word "proper"). And by "that bad", I mean this:
because you cant prove that theres no god, he exists. omg darwin was a fuccin retard like you. your fooled by those idiots who call themselfs 'scientists' and beleife that the stoopid evolution myth was reel. its not. evolution is fuccin horesshit and your fuccin retarted.For them to do that, they would firstly have to do the non-Christian thing and say insulting, hateful, and quite frankly incorrect things about you and everything you believe in. Note that I believe that evolution happens, but I do not believe that it was how we came to be, so, unless I were to go retro with my Christianness and my intelligence, to be honest, I probably wouldn't actually say that to you, because then I would be stupid.
Let me kindly point out that in 1976, a group of Russian scientists managed to work out that the Sun was a very young star and could not be more than 7,500 years old [citation given].
Let me also kindly point out that we have a bunch of fucking trolls who don't know how to read articles properly or edit them properly [link]. Let's take a look, after a reasonable amount (in your terminology, more than tons) of evidence pointing towards creationism:
Conclusion:Let's look at that again:
Creationism seems overwhelming and provable as compared to the implausible, evolutionism.
Answer:
Evolution has been observed and the evidence is piling up. Creationism has no proof nor evidence whatsoever and usually the creation "scientists" blatantly lie about Evolution to turn people to Creationism and others simply state things that are not true from their own ignorance of the subject.
Creationism has no proof nor evidence whatsoever...Uh, you just skipped past 13 pieces of evidence, are you fucking blind, explaining why creationism is more likely to be correct than evolution, are you fucking blind, and yet you refuse to, are you fucking blind, contemplate that there just might be a possibility, are you fucking blind, that some form of creationism, are you fucking blind, is how we came to be, are you fucking blind, and that evolution, are you fucking blind, is merely, are you fucking blind, a fairytale.
Woo. I close my eyes, and my keyboard and screen do not exist because I can't see them.
What the fuck. I just typed that with my eyes closed and it came out perfectly, and no, I do not have spellcheck (well, an automatic one, anyway, and I didn't use it on that sentence, you have my word). I suprise myself sometimes when I do that and it all feels wrong but comes out exactly as I wanted it to.
Don't forget that the conclusion was already given. After all, I can prank-edit a wiki better than you can edit one normally (I only did this once, by the way). Have a look at that link. Note how I've incorporated it into the text, rather than placing a statement contradicting both the text and the feel of the text.
Who would be to blame for that atrocity (sp?) ?
First answer by King kong92. Last edit by Socialrev.Socialrev, I can prank-edit a wiki better than you can edit one normally.
OK, now, I was trying to look for a particular page about written records only dating back to something like 3000 BC, but stumbled across that WikiAnswers page instead, so I'll put that here instead:
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.Oh yeah, there's this, too, which makes the idea of "evolution of language" sound kinda silly: A language dies every two weeks. Now, sure, you might say that this is merely old languages being replaced by newer ones. However, I would have to say that this sort of shit wouldn't actually properly decay when there's about 7,000 different languages in this world, and that, as far as I know, none of them are what we should call "primitive" (unless we're talking about languages we KNOW have been constructed)...
Many of the languages are not easily translated into English. In the endangered south Siberian language Todzhu, for example, the word "chary" means "2-year-old male castrated reindeer that can be used for riding."If evolution of language was part of how we came to be, then there would be around 50-100 languages today.
Also, why the fuck would someone wait for about 95,000 years before coming up with a language? Seriously, are you fucking blind, et cetera...
Now, those of you who say that the Bible is bullshit (Yay, we get to bring the Bible into this! Oh, goody! Now this post gets really offensive!) obviously don't agree with any of these passages (quoted from my GNB/TEV)...
- Proverbs 10:14 - The wise get all the knowledge they can, but when fools speak, trouble is not far off.
- Proverbs 20:3 - Any fool can start arguments; the honourable thing is to stay out of them.
- Proverbs 26:16 - A lazy person will think he is more intelligent than seven people who can give good reasons for their opinions.
- Proverbs 12:16 - When a fool is annoyed, he quickly lets it be known. Sensible people will ignore an insult.
- Proverbs 13:16 - Sensible people always think before they act, but stupid people advertise their ignorance.
- Proverbs 14:13 - Laughter may hide sadness. When happiness is gone, sorrow is always there.
- Proverbs 14:15 - A fool will believe anything; sensible people watch their step.
- Ecclesiastes 10:1 - Dead flies can make a whole bottle of perfume stink, and a little stupidity can cancel out the greatest wisdom.
[9] What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new in the whole world. [10] "Look," they say, "here is something new!" But no, it has all happened before, long before we were born. [11] No one remembers what has happened in the past, and no one in days to come will remember what happens between now and then.While I do admit that there probably wasn't much in the way of electricity back then, this principle can quite safely be applied to atheism and bible-bashing in general. The scariest thing about a lot of the Bible is that it's so reflective of the world we live in today: people half-assing the worship of God and thinking they're OK, forgetting to follow what he actually wants (e.g. the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time), or completely ignoring God and trying to shove him out completely (e.g. the Baals).
If you still think I'm stupid... Oh look! I did research! I suppose that's a new concept for you. And not from just one source, and not 100% Christian resources (most of them kinda are). On top of that, I could cite some stuff from the Bible, too, which is true even today. Looking back at Proverbs 26:16: "A lazy person will think he is more intelligent than seven people who can give good reasons for their opinions." If you're sure you're smarter than me, and feel certain that there is no God, you're living proof of this.
After all, I didn't say "If you think you're smarter than me". Read it again. And I'm not saying you're right, either.
The fact of the matter is that I at least did some research, and I'm still not going to be blatantly certain.
And now I'm going to explain why the Big Rip is a crock of shit.
Big rip theory goes something like this: Some time in the 1980s, someone spots a supernova somewhere, "scientists" "calculate" the distance and "find" that it's a ridiculous amount of light years away, they use their previous "calculations" and "work out" that the universe "is" expanding at an exponential rate.
But for this to be continuous and consistent, there would not be a Big Bang®, and all the matter and the energy of the universe would have always been there (read: it'd be infinite), very early on barely moving, then it would start burning up, and once all the potential energy has been used up, for it to continue, it would have to violate the laws of thermodynamics, which you guys just love doing.
If the Big Rip is true, then NO IT DID NOT FUCKING "START" AT ZERO. Allow me to demonstrate.
The formula for any exponential trend is:
y = Ae^(kx)
k affects the rate, and A affects the amplitude. When taking a trend, these are constants, meaning they don't change.
When does y equal zero? Two possibilities, perhaps?
One possibility: A was zero all along. Which means that y is always zero. However, the size of the universe isn't zero, is it? Of course not. So, one possibility left.
We will have to find x ourselves.
y/A = e^(kx)
ln(y/A) = kx
(ln(y) - ln(A)) / k = x
Set y to zero, and we get:
x = (-∞ - ln(A)) / k
x = (-∞) / k
x = -∞
Infinity tends to engulf finite numbers. No shit. Really, you're not going to reach infinity, are you? Try it now. Go on, get infinitely away from me. Didn't work, did it?
Two things:
- -∞ + SOME FUCKING HUGE YET FINITE NUMBER = -∞
- 0 - SOME FUCKING HUGE YET FINITE NUMBER > -∞
So an exponential curve is not appropriate for this model.
I propose that, if evolution is to be believed, then we'd have a sine curve. Or maybe we have a sigmoid?
Always remember: math and logic are necessary for science to work. If it fucks up logically, and/or fucks up mathematically, it ought to fuck up scientifically, too.
I don't see any reason for the universe to continue expanding as gravity is all around us, and the universe would be slowing down due to the gravity, resulting in a Big Crunch.
Oops. Apparently this phenomenon is called the Big Bounce. My bad. The Big Crunch is really shitty in terms of evolution.
Please take the time to remind yourself that I don't actually believe in any of this shit, I'm just pointing out how shitty the Big Rip is in comparison with some of the other shit I don't believe. Don't believe me? Read on.
The problem with the Big Bounce is that some of that energy escapes as heat and other shit you can't use due to friction, where the energy escapes as heat. For matter and energy to be infinite, due to friction, it would have to end at some point (the Big Crunch), and before that lead to infinite chaos. Heck, even your "scientists" don't like the idea of an oscillating universe, according to Wikipedia:
This scenario allows the Big Bang to have been immediately preceded by the Big Crunch of a preceding universe. If this occurs repeatedly, we have an oscillatory universe. The universe could then consist of an infinite sequence of finite universes, each finite universe ending with a Big Crunch that is also the Big Bang of the next universe. Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes that dilutes entropy accumulated in the previous cycle.I'm getting tired so I may be dribbling around here.
So, uh... I think the concept of the Big Bang is fucked, especially when the current "scientific" theory points to there being a beginning...
At first, there was nothing. Which exploded.
That's what they're saying.
Whereas "my" proposal is that there was some intelligent entity which was always there and able to create stuff, designing and creating our universe out of its imagination. What we know about this theory is that some things were made in an order which actually works, no shit. Although it would be very interesting to know a more elaborate version of the story we have. But it still wouldn't make people like you shut the fuck up, would it? No, you're too selfish to accept responsibility.
I really can't be fucked with this post anymore, so, uh, yeah, time for me to conclude:
Yes we do have evidence supporting our claims which, in turn, pisses on yours. Don't say that we have no evidence, or else you'll lose credibility. Otherwise, your water would be much saltier, you'll be much more scorched, and you'll be walking on spikes. Oh yeah, and you wouldn't know anything about that Halley guy.
Why am I still a Christian? Because it seems to work, and if Atheists were correct, life would suck, as we'd have no free will. I haven't even covered souls yet. When I get a "message from God", I don't merely imagine it, I actually see something which would slip past the minds of most, e.g. 1317. I actually have photos showing both parts of the context. Yet I don't use just this to say "Aha! There's definitely a God!"
I haven't even gone into why you, and not me, are the "brainwashed" ones. This should at least begin to explain it, if you'd like to skip the bit where they're showing stuff on TV, then go for it. I may cover that later, when I'm not so tired.
So, uh, yeah, first post in a while, and stuff.
28 January, 2009
Dishwashers: if there's one thing they don't do...
...it's the washing of your dishes.
I have to deal with bits of food stuck to plates, cutlery, knives, bowls, et cetera. This sort of thing makes me wonder why we even have a dishwasher in the first place if it's not going to clean a bloody thing.
Of course, one of you is going to tell me that the cutlery should be facing upwards in the cutlery basket. But there are two problems when removing them:
This morning, I had to empty the dishwasher and I noticed that there was a plastic container on the top tray which was full of water. I pulled it out, poured some of the water out, and there was a bunch of gunk on the bottom. Fortunately, it washed away after adding more water to it.
Oh, and one more thing: who the fuck forgets to put some water in their cup after drinking their tea? The cup gets stained and it's fucking impossible to remove it afterwards, not even with a good ol' fashioned scrub. So, I will have to drink tea while thinking about the fucking moon.
Anyways, that is all I have to say. Sorry it's so short.
I have to deal with bits of food stuck to plates, cutlery, knives, bowls, et cetera. This sort of thing makes me wonder why we even have a dishwasher in the first place if it's not going to clean a bloody thing.
Of course, one of you is going to tell me that the cutlery should be facing upwards in the cutlery basket. But there are two problems when removing them:
- I would get germs all over the eating side of the cutlery, defeating the purpose of putting them in the dishwasher in the first place.
- We have knives in the cutlery basket.
This morning, I had to empty the dishwasher and I noticed that there was a plastic container on the top tray which was full of water. I pulled it out, poured some of the water out, and there was a bunch of gunk on the bottom. Fortunately, it washed away after adding more water to it.
Oh, and one more thing: who the fuck forgets to put some water in their cup after drinking their tea? The cup gets stained and it's fucking impossible to remove it afterwards, not even with a good ol' fashioned scrub. So, I will have to drink tea while thinking about the fucking moon.
Anyways, that is all I have to say. Sorry it's so short.
27 January, 2009
Hippies: 'nuff said.
I was "fortunate" enough to go to the "Organic" River Festival a week or so ago with my parents. $20 a head to get in, $5 for parking, $65 total... for entry. Oh yeah, seeing as it was an alcohol-free event, we had to leave the beer we had with the person at the entrance. Fortunately, we got it back, considering that it was a dozen bottles of Heineken.
So we drive into the makeshift carpark (read: paddock), get out, and one of the first things I notice is that there's a group of people drinking beer and doing the "wassup" head flick at us. I was tempted to give them the "no" look back.
We expected this to be a food festival; however, the first stalls were where we could get some "organic" clothing. My Dad paid about $70 for a hat at one of them because, well, he needed a hat. Probably didn't look at the price tag. One of the next stalls across were some cheap clothes made in Equador, a country well known for slave labour. And a few stalls along, there was a fairtrade clothing stall. Hang on...
Once we finally got to food, there was some pretty cool stuff. Hey, 50% organic woodfire pizza! $10 for the basic pizza, or $15 for a few mere sprinklings of one of 3 different things. We ordered one with salami.
That $5 was probably one of the most pointless $5 we ever spent there. Having said that, the pizza was good.
I'm going to ignore some of the weirder stalls until later in this post, as I can't quite remember when they came in, and this is a post about hippies.
I did have a couple of drinks. There was a stall selling hot drinks, so I got a hot chocolate ($4, or $5 for the bigger cup, this is the one I chose). You could REALLY taste the cocoa. The other one I had was a strawberry + orange fruit smoothie... UGH that filled me up. Was about $6 IIRC.
So yeah, that was the good stuff. The first problem you might notice is that a lot of the stuff was expensive. You may also notice that a lot of the stuff wasn't actually organic. Come on, there was a bouncy castle there, how the fuck could that be organic? And even if it were, it'd probably taste pretty bloody horrid.
I came past a stall which was playing some rather Chinese-sounding music and had someone standing in a weird position with his eyes closed. Something about experiencing nature. My verdict: if you want to experience nature, go camping. Don't pay some loon to play some trippy-ass music and tell you some shit even though you're really surrounded by a bunch of stalls. Hello‽
(if you see a rectangle there, it is because you don't have any fonts with the interrobang in them. if you see a diamond with a question mark in it, same thing, except at least it's partially correct.)
Because this was a hippy festival, there were vegetarians. At a food stall there was something on the wall saying "Go Green Go Vege", and a piece of paper saying that cattle are one of the biggest contributors to global warming.
Wait. You only told me not to eat beef.
Now, here's my counter-argument to that. I don't believe that sheep, pigs, nor chickens (especially the latter) emit a lot of greenhouse gas. And do you know what I believe would be a clean, green alternative to cattle?
Whale meat. Yes, according to someone who has actually eaten whale meat (not myself, although I would like to try it one day), they taste just like big sea cows. What's more, they don't appear to emit the greenhouse gasses that a cattle would. So, we have it wrong: we should be eating whale, not beef.
Ten bucks the people who put that up regularly drink milk.
Oh, yes, the recycling stations. When you had some waste, you could recycle it. Great idea in theory, but only a few stalls had recyclable and/or compostable waste, so most of the waste went to the landfill.
So, what was the $20 a head for? We seem to think it's to cover the cost of pot.
Now, most of you have probably encountered people who happen to have a bit of hippiness. Y'know, those who are into "ethical" stuff. Well, I get my ethics from my Christianity, so I'm quite frankly not interested in the hippy ideals.
If you've seen the TV show "Off The Radar" (if you don't live in New Zealand, odds are you probably haven't), you may have come across something the guy said about eating animals. He summed it up by saying that, after you've raised these animals, and they've reached the end of their lives, the most honorable thing to do would be to eat them.
In theory, if you need to kill an animal, doing it as quickly and/or painlessly as possible (although tranqulisers might not be a good choice as people are probably going to eat them, otherwise you wouldn't have killed them in the first place) would be the way to go. Also, you'll want to raise them with care, not "oh let's just shove them in a cage and not actually give a shit about what they feel." Because animals have feelings, too, and it's what drives them. I, quite frankly, don't have any objections to that, and if they're feeling really worn out, then I suppose that would be the best thing to do.
I'm not entirely sure what's with all this "don't eat animals" shit, though, considering that a lot will quite happily eat eggs. A friend of mine will only eat free range eggs, however, using that reasoning, he should be able to eat meat which has been ethically dealt with. This sort of shit stumps me. Especially when I think his shoes are made out of leather.
Another friend of mine apparently saw a cow being dragged across a desert while still alive, and that sort of thing would make me feel like shit. So yeah, I think she has some excuse.
Now, I could go on for quite some time about vegetarianism, but I think it's a good time to move on. After all, this post is about hippies, not vegetarians.
What's with this "mother nature" bullshit? I mean, seriously, who's fucking stupid idea was this? My theory: "Mother Nature" is just a term to keep atheist hippies happy. I did a rant about atheists quite some time ago, and what it seems to boil down to is that, to follow God, or any other gods, you actually need to have an appropriate lifestyle. So we have some twisted reasoning, that there must be a god otherwise life itself won't make sense, but there must not be a god either otherwise you'll have to actually fucking do something decent, so we get this stupid term of "Mother Nature". Because the Christian god is described as a male, and we don't want any resemblance.
Before we move on, I'd just like to say one thing.
MOTHER NATURE IS A FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT.
If you're going to believe in a god of some sort, at least do it properly.
Now, tree hugging. You just want to stick it in that hole. Uh yeah, oh, Oh, OHHH DARWIN STOP IT! YES!
My verdict: It's a fucking tree.
A tree doesn't have emotions. Nevertheless, we still need trees. But hugging them and trying to feel up a tree is pointless. Like I said, if you want to experience nature, go camping. AND DON'T FUCK THOSE TREES!
Yes, trees can look really good, but it's still a fucking tree.
Lastly, of all things: maraijuana can cause brain damage. If you think you're right, and you're getting stoned off your ass all the time, chances are you're probably wrong. And you're probably not getting off that joint any time soon.
So we drive into the makeshift carpark (read: paddock), get out, and one of the first things I notice is that there's a group of people drinking beer and doing the "wassup" head flick at us. I was tempted to give them the "no" look back.
We expected this to be a food festival; however, the first stalls were where we could get some "organic" clothing. My Dad paid about $70 for a hat at one of them because, well, he needed a hat. Probably didn't look at the price tag. One of the next stalls across were some cheap clothes made in Equador, a country well known for slave labour. And a few stalls along, there was a fairtrade clothing stall. Hang on...
Once we finally got to food, there was some pretty cool stuff. Hey, 50% organic woodfire pizza! $10 for the basic pizza, or $15 for a few mere sprinklings of one of 3 different things. We ordered one with salami.
That $5 was probably one of the most pointless $5 we ever spent there. Having said that, the pizza was good.
I'm going to ignore some of the weirder stalls until later in this post, as I can't quite remember when they came in, and this is a post about hippies.
I did have a couple of drinks. There was a stall selling hot drinks, so I got a hot chocolate ($4, or $5 for the bigger cup, this is the one I chose). You could REALLY taste the cocoa. The other one I had was a strawberry + orange fruit smoothie... UGH that filled me up. Was about $6 IIRC.
So yeah, that was the good stuff. The first problem you might notice is that a lot of the stuff was expensive. You may also notice that a lot of the stuff wasn't actually organic. Come on, there was a bouncy castle there, how the fuck could that be organic? And even if it were, it'd probably taste pretty bloody horrid.
I came past a stall which was playing some rather Chinese-sounding music and had someone standing in a weird position with his eyes closed. Something about experiencing nature. My verdict: if you want to experience nature, go camping. Don't pay some loon to play some trippy-ass music and tell you some shit even though you're really surrounded by a bunch of stalls. Hello‽
(if you see a rectangle there, it is because you don't have any fonts with the interrobang in them. if you see a diamond with a question mark in it, same thing, except at least it's partially correct.)
Because this was a hippy festival, there were vegetarians. At a food stall there was something on the wall saying "Go Green Go Vege", and a piece of paper saying that cattle are one of the biggest contributors to global warming.
Wait. You only told me not to eat beef.
Now, here's my counter-argument to that. I don't believe that sheep, pigs, nor chickens (especially the latter) emit a lot of greenhouse gas. And do you know what I believe would be a clean, green alternative to cattle?
Whale meat. Yes, according to someone who has actually eaten whale meat (not myself, although I would like to try it one day), they taste just like big sea cows. What's more, they don't appear to emit the greenhouse gasses that a cattle would. So, we have it wrong: we should be eating whale, not beef.
Ten bucks the people who put that up regularly drink milk.
Oh, yes, the recycling stations. When you had some waste, you could recycle it. Great idea in theory, but only a few stalls had recyclable and/or compostable waste, so most of the waste went to the landfill.
So, what was the $20 a head for? We seem to think it's to cover the cost of pot.
Now, most of you have probably encountered people who happen to have a bit of hippiness. Y'know, those who are into "ethical" stuff. Well, I get my ethics from my Christianity, so I'm quite frankly not interested in the hippy ideals.
If you've seen the TV show "Off The Radar" (if you don't live in New Zealand, odds are you probably haven't), you may have come across something the guy said about eating animals. He summed it up by saying that, after you've raised these animals, and they've reached the end of their lives, the most honorable thing to do would be to eat them.
In theory, if you need to kill an animal, doing it as quickly and/or painlessly as possible (although tranqulisers might not be a good choice as people are probably going to eat them, otherwise you wouldn't have killed them in the first place) would be the way to go. Also, you'll want to raise them with care, not "oh let's just shove them in a cage and not actually give a shit about what they feel." Because animals have feelings, too, and it's what drives them. I, quite frankly, don't have any objections to that, and if they're feeling really worn out, then I suppose that would be the best thing to do.
I'm not entirely sure what's with all this "don't eat animals" shit, though, considering that a lot will quite happily eat eggs. A friend of mine will only eat free range eggs, however, using that reasoning, he should be able to eat meat which has been ethically dealt with. This sort of shit stumps me. Especially when I think his shoes are made out of leather.
Another friend of mine apparently saw a cow being dragged across a desert while still alive, and that sort of thing would make me feel like shit. So yeah, I think she has some excuse.
Now, I could go on for quite some time about vegetarianism, but I think it's a good time to move on. After all, this post is about hippies, not vegetarians.
What's with this "mother nature" bullshit? I mean, seriously, who's fucking stupid idea was this? My theory: "Mother Nature" is just a term to keep atheist hippies happy. I did a rant about atheists quite some time ago, and what it seems to boil down to is that, to follow God, or any other gods, you actually need to have an appropriate lifestyle. So we have some twisted reasoning, that there must be a god otherwise life itself won't make sense, but there must not be a god either otherwise you'll have to actually fucking do something decent, so we get this stupid term of "Mother Nature". Because the Christian god is described as a male, and we don't want any resemblance.
Before we move on, I'd just like to say one thing.
MOTHER NATURE IS A FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT.
If you're going to believe in a god of some sort, at least do it properly.
Now, tree hugging. You just want to stick it in that hole. Uh yeah, oh, Oh, OHHH DARWIN STOP IT! YES!
My verdict: It's a fucking tree.
A tree doesn't have emotions. Nevertheless, we still need trees. But hugging them and trying to feel up a tree is pointless. Like I said, if you want to experience nature, go camping. AND DON'T FUCK THOSE TREES!
Yes, trees can look really good, but it's still a fucking tree.
Lastly, of all things: maraijuana can cause brain damage. If you think you're right, and you're getting stoned off your ass all the time, chances are you're probably wrong. And you're probably not getting off that joint any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)