Archive for July, 2006

On ist’s

Saturday, July 8th, 2006
I am proud of belonging to the oldest surviving line of philosophers, mystics and poets. Does that make me a casteist?
Yes, because you’re evincing pride in achievements you haven’t made, by people you had no way of influencing. You’ve done nothing to deserve the pride you feel. It’s this innate and undeserved feeling of superiority that makes you a casteist.
By those standards, what can one be proud of?


Friday, July 7th, 2006

Another day of procrastination, avoiding those very important things that I have lined up. I have put off both short term and long term goals today. For example, that to-do list for the Canadian Visa. Sunday – definitely short term.

One other thing I have been thinking about for a while now. Learning Ocaml. It’s a programming language. It’s a programming language very different from the others that I currently know. That is a fact. What keeps this item on the list though, is speculation that Ocaml would be a very powerful development for my programming if I get around to learning it. You see, it is a language which is advertised as being very “expressive”. What that means is that, for a given program, Ocaml purports to allow the programmer to be much more succint in his code. What greater virtue is there in coding, after all, than the compact expression of abstract ideas? Well, the quality of expressiveness promises that, and that promise is one I believe.

Other than Ocaml, another expressive language is Common Lisp. Out of all the high level, expressive, functional (well, CL isn’t exactly functional, but whatever) languages, Ocaml produces the fastest binaries, and that’s why I plan to learn it first.

Plan to. ;)


Tuesday, July 4th, 2006

“What is Privacy?” “What does it mean to take something personally?”

Questions in that vicinity are interesting. I was once able to write as a disembodied voice, convinced that I had possession of THE truth, and that description of personal details was unnecessary and distracting. That writing was only ever read by a very small circle, members of whom knew my language, so communication was smooth, and I was assured of the clarity of my truths.

Now? Things are more complicated. People second-guess, attempt to reconstruct your intentions and often mess up pretty badly. There’s too much behind-the-curtain peeking going on.

But isn’t this intended? Believing everything you hear is incredibly naive and dangerous, isn’t it?

Since when were the only two choices trust and distrust? IMO, the appearance of skepticism is too often used to mask the lack of imagination and intelligence. Remember that both creation and destruction are needed for growth. Ideas diversify, and the tree of possibilities grow. Combined with the trimming of critical insight, the mind then takes form. Both steps are needed, a balance must be sought.

How does this relate to the personal aspects of conversation? I think it is much easier to share the methods with which one trims ideas, especially since such trimming is often done in the name of objectivity. It is the sharing of creativities that is rare and technically more difficult, because of personal differences and even privacy concerns. It is that type of conversation that I seek.

Who Can Name the Bigger Number?

Sunday, July 2nd, 2006

A Good Introduction to Turing Machines and the Busy Beaver function.