Sip

I am just a bit curious to know where all these "anti-war" people were when Sadam was burning village after village with chemical weapons during the Iran war.

I really didn't understand what happened so I can't say much. At this point, it seems to me someone hurt him thus he has closed himself off and doesn't want to go through the same thing again. If so, there's not much you can do. Only he can change that belief in his head. All you can do, is to remind him how good things are with you than without you (assuming things were good with you in his life). As far as "destiny" of love ... no such thing. Sure, I probably have no chance with a Pamela Anderson, no matter how hard I try. But that's not destiny! That's just how things are (I wouldn't call it destiny). As far as you two, the future is not written in stone. Some may argue otherwise, but I am not convinced it's so. Otherwise, life would be fairly pointless, don't you think?

quote:Originally posted by axel:My dear Sip, I am afraid you don't fully grasp the hidden implications of Ara's nihilist philosophy. In the realm of computing, this would not even translate to platform or language independence but to no platform at all (non existence!) to guarantee independence. Suicide as the ultimate act of freedom as Kirilov puts it! As if we could not hold to the true orthodox faith, as if Stroustrup was not the truth!!! Of course, we have to beware of all these false prophets that come to us in sheep clothing, you know, all these Java and C# evangelists who invite us to sell our soul for the ephemeral satisfaction of garbage collection and metadata introspection! Do not play into their hands and do not succumb to the temptation of writing C++.NET code!!! This would amount to major apostasy! We can no longer afford furher divisions. The old believers and the schismatics who sticked with ALGOL58 should be brought back into the true spirit. Hmmmm ... seems to me like you're the one advocating the C#, the .Net, the ALGOL58, and archaic "orthodox" platforms. I am with Ara on this. In the terms which you are proposing, I am the TRUE computer scientist looking for the ultimate truth behind things. I am not interested in a particular sect, group, company, platform, or computing model. Oh and simply rejecting some established conventions doesn't make one a nihilist as far as I understand.

I hear ya bruin. I've seen a couple of sites like that Yesterday, I went to Rubios at UCLA, starving. I hadn't eaten for more than 20 hours so the hunger was so strong, that instead of just ordering the usual Especial Combo with steak and no fresca, I also ordered a rice bowl with chicken and no fresca. After eating it all, I spent the rest of the day more miserable than when I was starving before going to Rubios. Moral of the story? When you are very hungry, beware of the danger that you may misjudge your needs and act irrationally. Don't let it blind your judgement and don't order too much.

quote:Originally posted by systemofayerevan:im profiles chi poxum,sorry:( 2 Sip isk du vonts es karoxanum irents erkusinel lsel?? Vonts? Miajamanak? Che da chi statsvum. Bayts meke miusits heto, inchu che Aveli lave bayts Artashi "taxi taxi"n e Arach mi kich "Chop Sui", heto mi kitch "Innervision", heto gna galis em! dram dirim taxi taxi taxi, im yarin hasi, mi togh vor im sereeee yerkar spasi ... chknagh e na chknagh, bolor ammmmmenits ... < heto mi hitch metalica "unforgiven" ... u heto Linkin Park "In The End". Mi kani hat el Top Ten of Rabiznerits (drank SHAT lav en kshelu jamanak) ... heto el Tzo FM (ed Leninakantsi banere) ... Verchum el, of course Harut Pamboukjian: Dariner Antsan. Da yeghav im SIRATS CDin. [ February 09, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

quote:Originally posted by axel:... with no identity, no soul, no faith, no culture, in short, non-human beings ... Yay, computers will save the world!

1832 is also me. I couldn't find a way to get to the gallery without making another face so I just clicked a few random things. Ended up pretty cool ... kinda reminds me of someone but I won't say who.

This will probably make you reconsider http://www.kalium.dk/enrique/indexeng.htm Just hillarious!!!

Well, I just wasted 10 minutes thanks to you!

Here is something a lot more macho that those ricey WRXes my friend

ROFLMAO! Azat, that's some of the funniest **** I have ever seen! This whole day has just been one big comedy show around here.

quote:Originally posted by hyebruin:... maybe some other time I'll share with you guys how I USED to think babies were made! Oh please ... DO TELL. Sorry axel, will get back to the original topic after this amazing development

Oh by the way, in case it wasn't clear above, when I said "macho" I was referring to the "lifting a hind leg" thing in the picture

Hahahahaha ... even wh00t got in to join the fun! Azat, you better figure this out or otherwise, it's going to be open season for Azat jokes from now on!!! Bruin, Azat was the one kind enough to fix your smilies for you since he is a moderator in this section.

quote:Originally posted by hyebruin:Wow, Sip! I'm impressed... So now let me clarify (and maybe impress?) a bit more ... Here's how Webster's defines knowledge (I am NOT making this up): quote:Main Entry: knowledgeFunction: noun Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen Date: 14th century 1 obsolete : COGNIZANCE 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique 2 b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding 2 c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION 2 d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned 3 archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind http://zr2.cs.ucla.edu/Sip/zr2/emb.gif So I think it is obvious to see why I get so excited about accumulating and experiencing knowledge and being as "intelligent" as I can possibly be. Oh geeez ... now there are so many different ways to go from here! Like, Knowledge is the most important item on my list. I trully enjoy taking my knowledge to whole new levels. ... Also, gives a whole new meaning to: "I would like to get to know you," doesn't it? http://zr2.cs.ucla.edu/Sip/zr2/bigs.gif

quote:Originally posted by systemofayerevan:hola ppl...... do you love SYSTEM OF A DOWN,or you all listening to Aram Asatryan,or something else,like that? ov karogh e tox patasxani HAYEREN! I like'em both.Yerkusen el lav en

Well, Azat, actually we will be making fun of you if you don't get this, but not yet. Definitely not pulling your leg though

quote:Originally posted by Azat:01000001011100 ... NO Azat jan, we are not. Bruin jan, when you edit there is a bug that makes your smilies change like that ... so you have ot edit again and remove those codes and substitute them with original smilies Once again, funny stuff! but I think unlike Azat, you should be able to figure out what we are talking about up there with those 1's and 0's. It's much easier than it seems at first. But don't worry about what Azat said up there

http://zr2.cs.ucla.edu/Sip/zr2/roflmao.gif Come on Azat, you can do it!

funny stuff Harut I knew you were smart

Azat you are too smart for your own good Just look at the patterns ... remember those annoying "3D" pictures that look like noise and you stare into it and after a while a 3D object appears? Well, that's the only hint I am giving you [ February 05, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Sip ]

quote:Originally posted by axel:In my view, intelligence is something quite difficult to define and to measure in the absolute. And it is polymorphic, one should at least consider logic and reasoning, analytical and abstraction skills (ie the ability to generalize (distinguish commonality from variability) and classify) as some of its pillars... I agree. I was not trying to "define" intelligence just proposing that knowledge is one of those pillars. For example, I would make the case that "abstraction skills" improve tremendously with knowledge. Actually, knowledge will provide you a structure and a framework by which to build abstractions. As an example, consider how one abstracts a "computer" ... transistor level, gate level, register transfer level, module level, processor level, architecture level, system level, network level. quote:Originally posted by axel:But do you think that people who found efficient algorithms to solve problems they had never been confronted with actually did a brute force search on the space of all algorithmic solutions? If not, what knowledge did they use to optimize their search and how did they get this knowledge and so on? Absolutely not ... the algorithm search space is much too vast (of course even much larger than my simple 500 box example ) ... so a lot of intelligence, creativity, and thought goes into creating an efficient algorithm (sign of intelligence). quote:Coming up with an efficient algorithm requires intelligence. Applying one to solve a problem doesn't for this is quite a mechanical task. Intelligence is required for tasks which may not be automatized. Isn't that self-evident?But this is where we disagree! Having knowledge of an algorithm makes you more intelligent in my opinion. So even though the application may be straight forward and mechnical, your MIND is more capable with all these tools that accumulated knowledge provides. All I am saying is that knowledge is a component (pilar) of intelligence. Of course it is NOT the only thing but it does contribute. This is in response to the point raised above that science and knowledge are purely tools ... sure they may be tools but they are "tools for the mind" ... potentially making it a more powerful mind

http://www.9xmedia.com/Images/CONFIGURATIONS%20-%20COLOR/5%20over%205.jpg Anyone can let me borrow $156K? It's an "emergency" HERE

Actually, it's not heavy math at all. It's basic "counting" math which I like a lot I'll do just one VERY simple part of it. Let's just count how many ways you can put 500 boxes in the plane, only if you put it on the plane or not. So for any box, you have 2 choices: put it in the plane or not. Let's count how many ways you can do this with 500 boxes: For 1 box -> 2 choices (in, out) For 2 boxes -> 4 choices (in in, in out, out in, out out) For 3 boxes -> 8 ways which is 2 * 2 * 2 For 4 boxes -> 16 total ways of doing things For 5 boxes -> 32 total ways of doing things ... For n boxes -> 2 to the power n ways(2^n) Follow me so far? For 500 boxes, you have 2^500 (2 to the power 500) different ways of putting boxes on the plane! That's a VERY VERY VERY big number. Just to put it in perspective, they estimate that the Universe has like 2^250 atoms (give or take a few trillion or whatever ). Now add on top of that, the different orientation of boxes ... relative placement, positions, etc and it is just an unbelievably huge number. If you are really interested, I could count that one too ... but I would only do it in 2 dimensions and for flat boxes. In 3-dimension, it's a bit more complicated but even in 2D there is an unbelievably HUGE number of ways you can arrange the boxes around!!! But FYI, NO one has been able to come up with a solution for this problem .... i.e. a program that can find THE BEST answer all the time quickly without going through all possibilities (which is impossible to do). But there are many ways that you can find "good" answers to such VERY complicated problems with computers. But those would require some computer science to explain

Ok let me clarify ... Just because I can use a computer to spell-check my documents does NOT make me more intelligent. It makes me more capable but not more intelligent. However, let's say I have 500 boxes with very different sizes and shapes that I want to ship to Armenia. Airplanes are very expensive to operate so I can only afford one flight. Now if I can come up with a way to fit the largest number possible of those boxes in a single plane, I am more intelligent than someone who can not. I think with my computer I can solve that problem much much better than someone who does not have a computer (or doesn't know how to use it or how to solve this problem). And for your information, if you think you can figure out the best arrangement of 500 boxes by moving them, rotating them around, and trial and error, I'd suggest you re-think your strategy. It may take trillions of years for you to find the best arrangement of boxes, even if you can move (or rearrange) 1 box a second to anywhere you want in the plane I can work the math for you if you want! The numbers get VERY big, VERY fast. [ February 04, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]