>>10
reading_sicp() is not an action performed by default,therefore
"fail_to_read_sicp();" has the same effect as ";" thus making it a superfluous function.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 3:45
>>11
I would argue, but this bottle of Laphroaig seems to cast all functions as superfluous.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 3:54
lol @ --> goes to operator
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 3:54
>>12
But this particular function isn't useful at all.
Its having for not_doing_something(); be run and waste processing time doing nothing.
Also troll_prog(); implies that the function itself is a complex self-aware AI which can generate thousands of posts and analyze the semantic structure in context, making it equal or even better then human comprehension(tireless and always working at 100% capacity of computer).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 4:22
not_doing_something() is my favorite function, be kind to your CPU and issue a NOP once in a while.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 4:24
>>15
be even kinder and issue HLT which doesn't waste CPU time.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 4:39
>>16
be even kinder and issue HCF which ends its suffering.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 4:42
>>14
You grossly overestimate the complexity of trolling /prog/, sir.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 4:47
>>18
the function needs to be a full-blown AI to just talk like a human.
Such programs have not existed before(Strong AI),thus making the assumption of "overestimation" invalid.
>>27
Well, what can I say? If you can't beat them...
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 5:26
_ MM MM MMNMMMM MMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMM MMMNM MM M Fuck your mother
_ M_M_r'_.',._.',.',._.',.',._.',.',._.', ',._.',.',___r_@MM Fuck your mother
_MM_W_M'_.',._.',.'>>,_'_._`__7M_X_M Fuck your mother
_M,___M'_.',._.',.', _.',.',._.',.',._.',._,_'_.',____M__B_0 Fuck your mother
_M_W__M'_.',._.',.',._.',.',._.', ',._.',._,_'_.',___WM__0_MX Fuck your mother
_M2_S_M_;_,_Xi'_.',. .',.',._.',.',._.', ',._.',.',___M7__ii@ Fuck your mother
_MS_@MM_X0'_.',._.',.',____S_____;i'_.',._.',.',__ ____MM__M_M Fuck your mother
_MWMMM'_._`__a0BMMMZ.',._`__XB_rS___.MMMMMMMMMB'_. ',___M__M_M Fuck your mother
_MM_MM____MMMMM MMMMMMMMMMr'_._`_:MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMW___MM_MiS Fuck your mother
_ MMM2__MMMMM (o) MMMMMMMMMM __ XMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM._BM:MX Fuck your mother
_ MMM__MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMM _ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM__MMMM Fuck your mother
_MMZ__BMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM _ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMB____MM Fuck your mother
_M____MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM _ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMW_WM__M Fuck your mother
WM__i_MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM _M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,_____M0 Fuck your mother
MX__r_MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'_._` MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'_._`_MM Fuck your mother
MZ____7MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM __._Z_ MMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMM__X___ZM Fuck your mother
MM__Z__MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM; __MM_MM_ WMMMMMMMM (o) MM__a____M0 Fuck your mother
_M__,r___XMMMMMMMMMMMMM ___:MMM_MMM:_ MMMMMMMMM MM____7____M Fuck your mother
_MM'_.',____,M0'_.',_____,,MMMB_MMMM_,____ZMMM:___ raW_____MM Fuck your mother
_ M_____ii_X___7__S_,2____SMMMM_MMMM'_.',______2:r'_ .',___M Fuck your mother
_ MM'_.',._.',._,_'_._`_8:MMMMM_MMMMM_;__;ii.',._,_' _._`_MM Fuck your mother
__ MM'_.',._.',.',______;WMMMMM_MMMMM_M'_.',._.',.',_ __.MM Fuck your mother
____ MMM'_.',._.',.',_____MMMMM_MMMMM'_.',._.',.',___XM MM Fuck your mother
____ 0MMMMr'_._,_'_.',____BMMM@_ZMMM;'_._,_'_._`__aMMMM M Fuck your mother
'_._` MMMMMM_M_,__;'_._,_'_._`_i'_._,_'_._`_i____MMMMaMa Fuck your mother
'_._` M__BMMMM_2_ZM__@r___Z'_.',___,,__._'___M__;M@___M Fuck your mother
'_._` MM___M2MMM8M___Z___XM___X,____M._r_____MMMM@____M Fuck your mother
'_._` MM___M___ZMMMMMMMMMMMiMMM_____WMSMMMMMMM_ZM____MM Fuck your mother
'_._`_ MW__MM__W__X___M___iMaXMMMMMMBM_S__7__:_MM____MX Fuck your mother
'_._`_ MM__XMM2MM_M___M___,r__M' ._`_r__B_aMBM_M2___iM Fuck your mother
'_.',__ M2__M__@__MMMMMMMMMr _M__M._MM_ZMZMM_;MM____MM Fuck your mother
'_.',___ M___MMM0_Z___M_ _MMB7MM2MM_M__S_____MW_____M Fuck your mother
'_.',___ M_____SMMMMWSM_ __i__M___a_M___M:MMB_S____MM Fuck your mother
'_.',___ MM'_.',___2XMMMWMMMM0MMMMMMMMMMMM__r_____2M Fuck your mother
'_.',____ MM_:'_.',______;_____8'_.',._.',.',____MM Fuck your mother
'_.',_____ XMMM'_._`_.aM'_._`__, ____;;:'_._`__MMM Fuck your mother
'_._,_'_.',__ WMM'_._,_' ._`_B__M__ _a.',._`_MMMr Fuck your mother
'_.',._.',.',__ MMM_:__,____M.__XS2,_____ZMMMX Fuck your mother
'_.',._.',.',___ rMMMZMM___;____B_____rMMMM Fuck your mother
'_.',._.',._,_'_._` irXS2MMMMMMB8ZMMMMX: Fuck your mother
TROLLKORE HEAD, I'M IN YOUR PROG
I'M FIZZY FIZZY WIZZY, I'M FUCKING A DOG
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 5:38
>>25-29
These posts don't bring anything new to the discussion.
HCF can't be a valid assembly instruction.
You didn't prove the opposite and referencing me at >>25,26 just proves my point.
>>31
These aren't personal computers and the instruction won't run on them making it invalid.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 6:08
>>33 >>20 didn't mention anything about personal computers. You made a blatantly wrong statement and are now trying to pretend you said something else.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 6:10
>>34
"valid assembly instruction" means code will execute on PC.
>>40
"valid assembly instruction" means code will execute on PC.
Explanation:
All assembly instructions can execute on a PC.
HCF opcode cannot execute on a PC.
Therefore, HCF is not an assembly instruction.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
When an argument is set forth to prove that its conclusion is true (as opposed to probably true), then the argument is intended to be deductive. An argument set forth to show that its conclusion is probably true may be relatively valid if, whenever all premises are true, the conclusion is also necessarily true.
An argument that is not valid is said to be ‘’invalid’’.
An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
What makes this a valid argument is not the mere fact that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the fact of the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. No matter how the universe might be constructed, it could never be the case that this argument should turn out to have simultaneously true premises but a false conclusion. The above argument may be contrasted with the following invalid one:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a man.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 6:34
>>41 All assembly instructions can execute on a PC.
Prove it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 6:42
>>42
if they can't execute why would they be valid?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 6:52
>>43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language
An assembly language is a low-level language for programming computers. It implements a symbolic representation of the numeric machine codes and other constants needed to program a particular CPU architecture.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 6:57
>>44
i'm programming for the Personal Computer.
Specifically my computer, and HCF won't run on it in any case.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:07
>>45
It doesn't matter what you're programming on. Since you didn't specify what assembly you were talking about, your statement in >>20 referred to any assembly.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:11
>>46
You post at >>34 makes that assumption of assembly i refer to isn't as >>24
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:17
You can hax my assembled anus.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:17
>>47
That has nothing to do with the validity of >>20. It's still a wrong statement in itself.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:19
>>49
It clarifies the meaning for people who can't understand what >>20 means.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:27
>>49
What >>20 means is what is written on it and that meaning is wrong. Any subsequent custom meaning assigned to it is irrelevant.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:28
>>51
You are assigning your own meaning to >>20 post
>>54
Incorrect. When you make posts you try to convey what you mean through what you write. You don't assign meaning to anything, you try to communicate meaning.
>>59
I do try to communicate meaning. Is that too "Koan" to you?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:51
>>62
Apparently you don't try hard enough, since >>20 fails to communicate the meaning you claim it to have and is blatantly wrong. One might say you miscommunicate meaning.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:53
lol i bet that when frozenvoid farts he gets down on all fours and then sniffs it like a dog. then because he is too fat to get back up he just lays there and shi
ts himself until the ambulance shows up to put him back on his feet. i don't have hard evidence but that is just the way i feel
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 7:53
"is blatantly wrong" doesn't applies to >>20
This is your assumption which you hold on in >>46
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:05
>>65
"Blatantly wrong" does apply to >>20. What it says is, in itself, wrong. You can't clarify something that is pretty clear already, you can only apologize for it being misleading and then correct it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:07
You ignore >>15 which refers to "your computer" and on which all this discussion builds. In context your posts constitute failed attempts to convince me this HCF opcode can run on my PC.
>>67 >>15 is not directed at you. It refers to every computer of everyone reading it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:12
>>69
By replying to me to you are replying about my computer
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:12
>>69
MISCOMMUNICATION DETECTED. YOU SHOULD HAVE USED ONE'S COMPUTER OR SOMETHING LIK EHTAT
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:14
CAN I COME OUT OF THE CELLAR (I'M DONE BEING GAY NOW)
/
,==. |~~~
/ 66\ |
\c -_) |~~~
`) ( |
/ \ |~~~
/ \ \ |
(( /\ \_ |~~~
\\ \ `--`|
/ / / |~~~
jgs___ (_(___)_|
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:20
>>70
Nope, >>15 was referring to every computer of any reader of >>15. >>16 was directed at >>15, and was therefore referring to >>15's computer. Then >>17 was directed at >>16, referring to >>16's computer. You are replying about >>16's computer. And regardless, your statement at >>20 does not specify any computer and is still blatantly wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:20
Posts in context: >>15 Name: Anonymous : 2009-01-10 04:22
not_doing_something() is my favorite function, be kind to your CPU and issue a NOP once in a while.
>>73
How >>20 can be wrong about "your computers" at all?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:23
>>74
See? >>16's computer. And >>20 is still blatantly wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:27
>>77 >>20 is "HCF isn't a valid assembly instruction. "
It applies to >>15,16 chain
and >>15 is " not_doing_something() is my favorite function, be kind [/i]to your CPU[/i] and issue a NOP once in a while.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:29
.....................
. Y . O . U . . .
.....................
. J . U . S . T . .
.....................
. . L . O . S . T .
.....................
. . . T . H . E .
.....................
. G . A . M . E . .
.....................
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:29
>>76 >>20 is wrong because it refers to any assembly, not "your computer"'s assembly.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:32
>>77
An analogy would be :
A person would tell me be kind to your cat and play with every day.
You would tell me be kind to
your cat and make it fly.
While I would reply : Cats can't fly.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:37
>>78
If you follow your logic, you replied to >>17, who was talking about >>16's CPU. You have no way of knowing if HCF is or not a valid assembly instruction for >>16's CPU.
Regardless of that, >>20 was still referring to any CPUs assembly and is, still, blatantly wrong.
>>83
That's an unverifiable statement, it can't be taken into account.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-10 8:42
An analogy would be :
A person would tell me be kind to your car and service with every month.
You would tell me be kind to
your cat and make it fly.
While I would reply : my other car is a cdr
>>90
In that case i'm going to use the tripcode on a permanent basis,so that you could verify that every post which i made on this board was really made by me.
>>93
You don't get the feeling that you're unwanted? And I don't get it why you want to try and change this, there are plenty of programming communities who would accept your kind. /prog/ is not your alley.
Individual identities are vanity. Having an identity means the discussion becomes a blame game against the various identities. When you are anonymous, there is nothing you can blame but a singular post.
>>95
I'm afraid your point has been disproved by the request of >>90
to verify my identity(repeatedly) which is impossible to do if i share identity with "anonymous" posters.
>>97
While it can be occasionally useful to verify a posters identity, most people would consider using one tripcode for a thread. Why is maintaining a universal identity across threads necessary for you?
(define (Frozen)
(define (iter n)
(if (> n 0)
(begin
(troll-prog)
(fail-to-read-sicp)
(iter (- n 1)))))
(iter 100))
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-13 6:39
>>16
HLT is a priviledged instruction (needs ring 0 privs) on the x86, you might want to call a syscall or API(like VOID Sleep(DWORD dwMilliseconds); on win32 or unsigned int sleep(unsigned int seconds); in some *nix'es) if this is ran from usermode, otherwise you'll need a driver/kernel module to run HLT for you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-13 7:28
I don't want to hear about your erotic no-strings-attached `hardware'.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 10:52
>>108
I don't have any hardware which can be classified as erotic: My Athlon box is asexual.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 11:25
>>110
Erotic = causes arousal in others.
I happen to find asexual Athlons insanely hot.
>>39 >>41
I can't believe you faggots didn't realize that this was FrozenVoid.
There's only one person on this board dumb enough to cite wikipedia.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 13:44
>>113
I did realize. I also realized he put himself in a position where he would inevitably run out of arguments (even the crazy ones) to support his previous wrong statement in >>20. I wanted to see what he would do when that happened. Unfortunatelly, at the last minute he threw a curve ball when he claimed he posted >>17 -- which was clearly a lie as he does not make posts like that one -- and I seized the opportunity to ease him back into posting with his tripcode, so at least some good would come out of the discussion.
>>118
Its a fact that It was claimed in >>83
And no one else claimed authorship of >>17
making your posts invalid.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 13:57
>>119
You're wrong. simply claiming a post as your own does not make it yours. i could claim any abandoned post and since nobody will claim ownership, it's mine.
get out.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 13:58
>>120
However no one claimed the ownership of >>17
and you claimed that someone did, making your posts factually wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:00
>>121
guess what: i'm not >>114. You're just wrong and you can't read
now please kindly get out
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:02
>>122
The you have no place in the discussion: I was discussing with >>114
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:04
>>123
you still cannot read, because he never alleged that you DID post >>17, only that you claimed to. thus your claim that "
You're wrong: I posted >>16 not >>17" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what he said. Thus, you are wrong and cannot read.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:06
>>124
But I never claimed to post >>17
its what >>114 posted(and >>114 is wrong).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:09
>>125
Regardless of whether he is wrong or not, you still brought up something totally irrelevant to his post:
>>130
"ball when he claimed he posted >>17 -- "
I never claimed this: thus making >>114 wrong
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:26
>>131
You are the wrong one, because you are denying making irrelevant and off-topic posts. He never claimed you posted >>17, thus making your statement
>>132
Can you disprove it? Where "he claimed he posted >>17 -- "?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:28
>>133
Again, you're simply wrong because you are committing egregious logical fallacies of the worst kind.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:30
>>134
The posts is being simply wrong and you are trying to invent an excuse.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:34
>>133 >>114 is probably very aware that you posted >>16 and not >>17, and thus statement >>15 is pointless in the scope of this discussion. His claim of you claiming to post >>17 is largely irrelevant and you are just trying to rescind all of your fallacious arguments because you know you're wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:35
>>136
"His claim of you claiming to post >>17 is largely irrelevant"
Its actually very relevant, because its factually wrong: there were no such claims before.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:39
>>137
Actually no. Post >>115 logically does not follow from post >>114, thereby making your claim of posting >>17 irrelevant. Do you have any actual arguments or are you simply here to purposely mislead?
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:43
>>138
Its follows because: >>114 claims: "I claimed that I posted >>17" >>115 marks this claim as wrong: previous posts indicate its true
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 14:46
>>139 >>115 marks nothing as wrong. It simply states that you posted >>16 and not >>17. It says nothing about claiming to post >>17 and nothing from the aforementioned statement can infer that it does state that. There is a huge gap in your reasoning and I suggest you correct it.