Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

back to your c++ dear boy. leave the universe to those who understand.

Yes, leave the universe to a Turk who graduated from the “university of life” and now runs a fish & chips shop in Shirley!



Hey Lordo, I can picture what your menu looks like…


Dining in or Take Away:
----------------------------------------

The Galactic Special ₤5.50

The Astroburger ₤3.75

Comet Rings ₤2.50

Sattelino Sandwich ₤3.60

Space Dogs ₤4.00

[Lordo]

back to your c++ dear boy. leave the universe to those who understand.

Yes, leave the universe to a Turk who graduated from the “university of life” and now runs a fish & chips shop in Shirley!



Hey Lordo, I can picture what your menu looks like…


Dining in or Take Away:
----------------------------------------

The Galactic Special ₤5.50

The Astroburger ₤3.75

Comet Rings ₤2.50

Sattelino Sandwich ₤3.60

Space Dogs ₤4.00

you left out droungo-gr-special £ 3.59 - incl double bagon, double hegg and a whiff of terggish delight.

[Atheist]

On randomness:

I have used randomness countless times in my programming endeavors. In one of my most recent projects I made heavy use of randomness to style (beautify) web elements generated so that they would appear more interesting to the user instead of having boring default values.

Some of these elements were complex and would accept dozens of variables that affected the element’s appearance but I always found that it was extremely rare to get a beautifully styled element out of random values. In more than 90% of the cases the randomly generated element was very ugly.

I then utilized restricted randomness which basically allows randomness from a more select set of values and although the appearances of elements improved dramatically it still wasn’t good enough. The more I restricted randomness the more beautiful the elements created and I soon found that what I was doing wasn’t terribly random anymore to get acceptable results!

Although very interesting, randomness is very chaotic and will in the vast majority of cases produce visually unimpressive designs.

If the "variables" of our universe were different then we wouldn't exist. Maybe something else "interesting" would exist or maybe nothing "interesting" would exist. This doesn't mean that the universe was designed for us to exist.

Take lotto for example. There is about 1 in 10 million chance of winning by playing 1 lotto. Maybe you will win the jackpot, maybe somebody else will win the jackpot, maybe nobody will win the jackpot.

If somebody wins should that somebody think that him winning was not something "random" because the chance of that happening was very low, and that instead somebody must have intentionally rigged the draw in his favor?

[Get Real!]

If the "variables" of our universe were different then we wouldn't exist. Maybe something else "interesting" would exist or maybe nothing "interesting" would exist. This doesn't mean that the universe was designed for us to exist.

Take lotto for example. There is about 1 in 10 million chance of winning by playing 1 lotto. Maybe you will win the jackpot, maybe somebody else will win the jackpot, maybe nobody will win the jackpot.

If somebody wins should that somebody think that him winning was not something "random" because the chance of that happening was very low, and that instead somebody must have intentionally rigged the draw in his favor?

I’m talking about randomness and you’re talking about probability!

In a nutshell I’m talking about random beatification versus beatification through selection.

Simple example:

Let a robot randomly pick and choose the colors/shapes/decor of your house and you’ll end up with an unsightly result as opposed to a brain capable of aesthetic evaluation making the decisions.

We can see from its beauty that the universe has had aesthetic evaluation gone into it!

Had the universe been the result of some chaotic explosion or other spontaneous complex reaction, it wouldn’t have resulted as pretty and symmetrical as the universe is.

[Lordo]

the only explosion you can understand is on earth with gravity applying on the result. who says explosion is chaotic, in fact an axplosion is ordered. it does not mean that all its resultan pieces are the same size or they travel the same distant. take it out to space where the only gravity that applies is a particle's inherent gravity force which is proprtional to its mass and the result is the universe. there are picturers of explosions in the universe and susequesnt formation of stars and planets reh balavi.
gavole ama indolis topouzzon ise

[Get Real!]

the only explosion you can understand is on earth with gravity applying on the result. who says explosion is chaotic, in fact an axplosion is ordered. it does not mean that all its resultan pieces are the same size or they travel the same distant. take it out to space where the only gravity that applies is a particle's inherent gravity force which is proprtional to its mass and the result is the universe. there are picturers of explosions in the universe and susequesnt formation of stars and planets reh balavi.
gavole ama indolis topouzzon ise

Lordo, your incessant baseless sweeping statements combined with the diarrhea you manufacture along the way, is most taxing to say the least!

[Lordo]

the only explosion you can understand is on earth with gravity applying on the result. who says explosion is chaotic, in fact an axplosion is ordered. it does not mean that all its resultan pieces are the same size or they travel the same distant. take it out to space where the only gravity that applies is a particle's inherent gravity force which is proprtional to its mass and the result is the universe. there are picturers of explosions in the universe and susequesnt formation of stars and planets reh balavi.
gavole ama indolis topouzzon ise

Lordo, your incessant baseless sweeping statements combined with the diarrhea you manufacture along the way, is most taxing to say the least!

your problem is before you look at anything your mind is already closed. even on earth what happens when a meteor hits the earth. the resulting hole, is it circular or not? does this look chaotic to you.

[Atheist]

On randomness:

I have used randomness countless times in my programming endeavors. In one of my most recent projects I made heavy use of randomness to style (beautify) web elements generated so that they would appear more interesting to the user instead of having boring default values.

Some of these elements were complex and would accept dozens of variables that affected the element’s appearance but I always found that it was extremely rare to get a beautifully styled element out of random values. In more than 90% of the cases the randomly generated element was very ugly.

I then utilized restricted randomness which basically allows randomness from a more select set of values and although the appearances of elements improved dramatically it still wasn’t good enough. The more I restricted randomness the more beautiful the elements created and I soon found that what I was doing wasn’t terribly random anymore to get acceptable results!

Although very interesting, randomness is very chaotic and will in the vast majority of cases produce visually unimpressive designs.

If the "variables" of our universe were different then we wouldn't exist. Maybe something else "interesting" would exist or maybe nothing "interesting" would exist. This doesn't mean that the universe was designed for us to exist.

Take lotto for example. There is about 1 in 10 million chance of winning by playing 1 lotto. Maybe you will win the jackpot, maybe somebody else will win the jackpot, maybe nobody will win the jackpot.

If somebody wins should that somebody think that him winning was not something "random" because the chance of that happening was very low, and that instead somebody must have intentionally rigged the draw in his favor?

I’m talking about randomness and you’re talking about probability!

When you wrote "In more than 90% of the cases the randomly generated element was very ugly" what is that "90%" if not a probability?

In a nutshell I’m talking about random beatification versus beatification through selection.

Simple example:

Let a robot randomly pick and choose the colors/shapes/decor of your house and you’ll end up with an unsightly result as opposed to a brain capable of aesthetic evaluation making the decisions.

We can see from its beauty that the universe has had aesthetic evaluation gone into it!

Of course the probability that a person will choose a "beautiful" combination is much higher than the probability that a stupid robot will choose a "beautiful" combination.

But that doesn't mean that the robot can't come with a "beautiful" combination. It can. The possibility is low (say 10% or 1% or 0.001%) but the possibility is there.

So if a human could make a "beautiful" choice say 100% of the time, the Robot can do it say 1%.

But what is the chance that a Ghost will come in the room and arrange the colors/shapes/decor of your house in a beautiful combination? The chance of that happening is zero.

The human is real, the robot is real, the ghost can exist only in your imagination and has zero chance of having any effect in this world.

[Lordo]

here is another one of your chaotic explosions caused by meteor in tanguska. my word gr you really are a master of your subject matter. stick to c++ reh muslimite swine.

[Tim Drayton]

Here is a big toe covered in warts:



This is something that occurs in nature, but I don't find it particularly aesthetically pleasing. People are designed to fart, and most of us don't find that aesthetically pleasing, either. If the universe was designed by a greater power to be aesthetic, what about these slip-ups?