Ben Banana

Oh yes so that you can preach your flawed atheistic position.

Yep.

Your issue is unclear... In C, I figure that a first-fit block allocation algorithm can be done like this:

void* block = 0;
unsigned int fitBlock = 0;
for ( ; fitBlock != blockQuantity; ++fitBlock)
{
if (blockFree[fitBlock] && blockSize[fitBlock] >= minimumSize) break;
}

if (fitBlock == blockQuantity)
{
// Couldn't make allocation as expected. Handle situation with alternatives ... (e.g. pagefile management).
}
else
{
block = blockAddress[fitBlock];
blockFree[fitBlock] = 0;
// Block allocated.
}

Best fit: (a rudimentary implementation)

void* block = 0;
unsigned int bestFitIndex = 0;
unsigned int bestFitSize = sizeOfLargestBlock;

unsigned int fitBlock = 0;
for ( ; fitBlock != blockQuantity; ++fitBlock)
{
if (blockFree[fitBlock] && blockSize[fitBlock] >= minimumSize && blockSize[fitBlock] <= bestFitSize)
{
	block = blockAddress[fitBlock];
	bestFitSize = blockSize[fitBlock];
	bestFitIndex = fitBlock;
}
}

if (blockFree[bestFitIndex] && bestFitSize >= minimumSize)
{
blockFree[bestFitIndex] = 0;
// Block allocated.
}
else
{
// Couldn't make allocation as expected. Handle situation with alternatives ... (e.g. pagefile management).
}

... then do it and let's see if it is good.

I am afraid

False. You're annoying. Go away.

yoga and consciousness studies show that the mind is the product of a divine god.

Impressive ludicrosity. I think you beat my 'Twin Rabbits in Two Cups' video there. Nice job.

This is what I am arguing from the beginning of this thread.

Well, you lost and you're proving to be seriously insane.

Don't try to become a modern Pope denying the basic facts of the world.

Too late for me, Halloween was about a week ago. I was neither a zombie, ghost, angel, vampire Lord Dracula or the Pope. Perhaps I shall declare a new holiday derived from Paganistic religions for the sake of wearing a weird hat, like the things the Pope does and also like the stupid hat the Pope wears.

I assure you however, I am trying very hard! I WILL BECOME THE POPE!

Actually its easy enough to find the Lord residing in you than finding a zombie.

Personally, I feel like the Lord of All Delicious-Foods resides within me. Definitely correct. No zombies in my stomach at all! Now why does that matter? Don't answer me please. I don't care. That's just rhetoric.

ॐ ईशा वास्यमिदँ सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।। १ ।।

Butt squeaks?

More details: http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v6/n11/full/nphoton.2012.236.html

Well, thanks for your positive remarks. I think I agree; though for myself I feel it would be nice to find some rigid studies around this.

Awe...

There is no exklusive definition for the word ''religion''!

This brings my curiosity to the realm of conceiving strange self-torture mechanisms... I don't know how to mitigate my pain with anything but lesser pain itself. This is hideous. Phi for All, thank you for your bravery.

The measurement problem has continued to persist for more than half a century and if I don't speak, physicists will continue holding their biased positions without arriving at a common consensus and scientists turned philosophers and scholars will continue misrepresenting eastern religions twisting their doctrines in order to make them to be compatible with modern science. Yes, one needs light when there is darkness, when there is a problem and if there weren't any big problems and big issues I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. I very well know what kind of service I am making for humanity.

*Gooey waffle flops off of my face.*

......

I guess discussions on the internet could be a bit more civil & sane if someone like Albert Einstein was known to abuse crack.

Regardless, juanrga's point is actually quite valid. Even if I agreed with an "institute" like this (and I know there are plenty of "institutes" out there that I agree with), I would still value it the same as juanrga is doing with your material. I'm sorry to ask, but can you find better sources than this, please?

Also, remember to Think BIG like Metanexus Institute. Remember BIG History, BIG Problems and BIG Questions..

Oh, this makes me want to refer to all glasses of chocolate milk, and also perhaps all dozen-boxes of glazed donuts, "the Gods." Very cool idea.

Modern science is now realizing that it might be getting extremely sick of pseudo-science. This facinating spectacle is just like the event when gravity's well deserved world-abroad recognition and fame was returned by a gracious enabling of more sports than just basketball. Oh, it was a marvelous day.

Yeah, I was thinking about that possibility... though honestly, I don't think it explains everything. My skill in programming has all but improved, but my natural mathematical sense seems to have rubbed away. The quirk remains: I've been exercising with more math now than I've ever done in my life, yet I feel like the tedium associated with the nature of this work, including the way I have been taught to perform it (hardly any theory is provided, it's just about getting the problems solved...) has in fact cropped my intellectual "cleverness," "ingeniuity," lucidity," or "creativeness" regarding mathematics. I'm trying to say that these qualities seem to have been grinded-down, not that they were originally exceptional or anything. Well, I don't know. Thanks for your thoughts.

I know how to "apply the concepts," especially from mathematics. = D

In fact, I've been applying them much longer than I have had a formal introduction, as I am largerly self-taught regarding topics such as linear algebra (which in fact my own calculus teacher who I have currently only considers vectors useful for applications in physics, which I know is deeply false ). I wouldn't enjoy counting how many high school math teachers I've annoyed by insisting they help me with problems which are not important (or even related in any way) to the standard course... probably because a lot of them didn't know how to help me regardless of their stubbornness. Actually, I would dare say I'm familiar with the image of mathematics' application far better than most mathematicians out there who only managed to feed themselves back into the education process (from a world-professional perspective, essentially they learned-to-teach).

I would claim, my respect for the material is not a problem. My interest in education's manner of yields is a problem. This is the kind of deal where someone can, for instance, be in love with the history of ancient Europe, but find coverage of this subject as taught in a formal classroom not merely tedium, but also largely indirect, disatsifying and contractive to their immersion regarding their passion. Now back to my case with mathematics, I've noticed particularly during my practices and application of math (programming), well... I'm sorry but it's not easy to explain here.

I keep trying to tell myself I'm delusional, but it's not working... To the extent of my experience, I'm under the impression that most of my schooling, formal study and education, as far as my effort has pushed, has only been corrosive to my intellect. Isn't there something wrong with my perception? Am I doing something wrong? I don't want to believe myself ... but I can't help it.

I feel like some of my intellectual skills I believe I was once exceptionally good with, such as intuitive (mathematical) problem solving, have dulled. I (delusionally?) see a possible connection with this degradation to my formal education, because as I've relearned how to mechanically handle problems without any theoretical context -- many of which I had already painlessly, though chronically solved previously by myself -- I have somewhat lost my strong sense and deeply-founded perception in the principles of the subject issues. I'm not suggesting a rigid or logical connection, but I see that this issue is at least somehow indirectly related to some part of the intensity of my involvement with formal education and how much freedom/time I have otherwise to think about my own problems and questions, for myself and by myself.

Am I quacky or something? What's wrong here? Is it me? If you think this issue is merely a fault on my own behalf, do you think it is a perceptual fault, or a lacking approach to formal study? At least, please, approach this topic of mine with respectful considerations.

Well, in seriousness, not only do I think "How did evolution get it right?" is a silly question to ask, but also a conceptually-destructive question. This kind of thinking is precisely what disables many people from accepting the theory as much as a fact it is. You can also call creationism a culprit if you want, but if we're talking about matters of individual comprehension rather than organized ideological movement, then I would say, this false aspect is the culprit.

I'm having fun. Riding the rainbow.

Bump (cannot edit):

I understand the word "nothing" refers to two "things" in the statement "nothing works" the empty set and nothingness. I thought it was clear enough (bad jokes aside) i was referring to nothingness when I wrote nothing.

... Whatever. I meant indexicality in the context of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relations

EDIT: You are quite close: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_relation

I recommend you expand your idea across this horizon (i.e. beyond symmetric relations) to ensure its natural essence.

which language is good for making simulation games.

None in particular. Any language which is good for making games (at least) -- satisfactory for your ambition and comfortable for you to use -- is good for your purpose of developing simulation games. Flash isn't a programming *language* itself, though ActionScript (Flash's scripting component) is.

Explain this desire a bit more. Do you want to learn programming? What kind of things do you imagine doing/creating with your desired skills? If you're open to any direction I think is fun, then I'd say learn C++ and try to write game AI, perhaps for competitions.

Intolerance plus ignorance is a dangerous cocktail.

I've been begging him to try! Don't ruin it.

Its not my beliefs which have been shattered

Of course not.

Actually Depth psychology is also a real investigation.

Compile a list of real investigations and it will affect your argument by nothing. This is my point, again. It's not a game about how much you can cite or how much investigation there is into a certain aspect of your belief, such as "psychology." This is my point: it's called fanaticism.

Its my job to cite evidence for my claims and I just don't quote scientists and philosophers, I also understand their reasonable arguments and if you got some problem with my ideas then try to refute it by citing sources I'll be more than happy to address them, if not accept that you were wrong, don't tell me that it has shown to be wrong already, show some intellectual honesty for god sake.

Citation is not considered evidence at all... You obviously misunderstand the purpose of citation: "then try to refute it by citing." That's crazy. You may use citation to affirm refutation, but things don't work by throwing various sources against each other.

I think by now you should have understood how the Gnostic idea of the pleroma of God is turning out to be right and in the future more and more scientists and philosophers are going to investigate the pleroma of god, its just that not many have realized what the recent findings have been saying.

Obviously... and that's the problem.

directly leads to the existence of the pleroma of God

You can say that as much as you would like, but it's extremely far from being absolutely evident.

Integrated with Facebook, as in built into Facebook's website, or does it just spam messages about player "achievements" onto Facebook?

To create a sims like simulation a great engine is required

"Game engine" isn't such a generic term.

Does facebook provide the engine?

No. There is no such almighty powerful engine required to make a simulation game. In fact, I programmed a graphical chicken farming game when I was 11 years old. Simulation games are very very easy to make in comparison to other genres. Facebook has no business providing game engines anyway...

Your personal abhorrence towards a topic is not going to make the ideas just die off, after this discussion of topic I am going to continue investigating the pleroma of god as I always have because for the first time in the intellectual history of mankind esoteric religions are going to correct the scientific consensus.

The reason I made this remark was exactly my understanding of why the idea will not die out. You can continue investigating, but apparently you aren't. You're becoming an expert at quoting other people's investigations, who are no more capable of analyzing truth in any spectacular way than any mere person. I think this means you're a reasonless fanatic.

We already know the answer: bullshit. Where does this answer come from? Try to answer that. So far, your answer has been: "They're unwilling, closed-minded jerks!" Okay, fine... but why would you suppose? It's human nature? Judging by what you've said specifically, you believe so indeed yourself.

This is exactly the difference between you and I. You've only had an orgasm. You've discontinued your real investigation, and now you're just massaging the parts you liked most.. So, why is it right for us to call bullshit now? Doesn't that mean a discontinuation of our investigation? No, it's a conclusion. How can I say this, that you have merely discontinued real investigation, and we have concluded it? This topic is 11 pages. 11 pages. Does that number matter? Doesn't it require great effort to share brilliant but very controversial ideas with others? 'Depends. I've already addressed how. You didn't answer.

Where we left off:

I'm very happy with this response, because it's a lot more rigid than anything you've said before; however, I remain in disagreement. I still see a critical lack of connection between all of your discrete beliefs expressed there.

 

1. "the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind"

2. mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect"

3. what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers

 

Even if these were appropriately demonstrated to be strongly associated, by the collective manner they do not form a very robust belief. We can conclude the basis of just one of these components to be severely incorrect -- an event which has already occurred -- implying your total belief was weakly designated and nothing more. If these ideas don't logically correspond one-to-one, there's a great likelihood they were merely designated to unnaturally support a select core ideology: that means it's arbitrary.

And at the god fucking damn core of it all, we've repeatedly shown you why the "evidence" you assert is completely wrong, and your responses have only been inadequate counters!

I'm probably going to make a cake after this topic is closed (if that ever happens)... just waiting for the day... impatiently...