#100 Marilee: When something went wrong with one of my comments it showed up in my “view all by†but not on the thread.
Velma #96:
Once upon a time, I was helping my mother make my birthday cake, and I put in the specified quantity — of salt rather than sugar.
They were both kept in unmarked glass jars, though, if I recall correctly, in different places. (We added a label after that.)
I don't recall whether I ate my portion.
Technical observation: The per-thread feed links (“You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread.â€) have an extra slash in them; I presume this is accidental.
#88: I don't think I asked "What kind of client do I need", but it got answered. Not sure how that happened.
Never had any experience with MUCKs. That is what I meant by 'server type' though; I don't think considering the various MU* to be Different Things In Need Of A New Acronym is very helpful (though of course different software should have different names); they're all muds to me. Except we say 'virtual world' these days.
TWin is an auxiliary thing; goes beside the regular text-based view and gives you windows for whatever the server provides. Very handy for reading documents and status displays, the sort of stuff that would be annoyingly verbose in a text-only system.
</ramble>
#62 Dave Bell: If there was a Making Light Mud I would be there the moment I heard.
What server type is it?
If you'd like to use existing facilities rather than doing your own administration, why not invade Waterpoint; we've* got lots of lovingly-crafted grand spaces and cozy nooks nobody's bothering to occupy, and I think You People would get along reasonably well with Us People. (We don't have very many knitters these days, though.)
* I am not a Waterpoint admin, just a regular.
#85: Attempting to repack your clarifications into one statement:
Claiming that one "does not have free will" will be incorrect because one's model of oneself is necessarily incomplete.
If this is a correct summary: Either we're talking about different things, or we agree.
Trying to restate my position: "Free will" is not a capability of a mind; it is the label we give to the experience, the feeling, of considering choices, and that experience is a consequence of the structure of our introspection. Talking about "having free will" is unuseful because the presence or absence of that feeling is irrelevant to the actual capabilities of a mind; there is no actual "free will" which makes a mind more powerful than one which "does not have it".
#81: Replying in pieces because I'm not up to coherence at this hour:
Firstly, I entirely agree with your statement about the difference between bad premises and bad conclusions.
We know that we cannot wholly model our cognition ...: Do you mean that it is impossible to construct a complete model of the human mind (if so, why?), that it is impossible to construct a complete model of one's own mind, that we do not yet have such a model (i.e. the research has not yet been completed), or ...?
... so I'd tend to imagine that most new models ...: I can't comment on this because I don't study such attempts.
The weakest point I can see in this ...: I don't know what to make of this. If you answer the above question it might help.
Jenna Moran #71:
Assuming you want to continue to discuss this, I need clarification: I'm not sure how to read your analogy. Is the D&D example simply of poor argument (in which case I have something to say about "the primal experience of free will"), or do you claim that there is an analogous distinction in people? If the latter, are you claiming dualism, or something else?
Followup to me #38:
The comment feeds appear to be displaying only the last N comments, for somewhat inconsistent values of N (whereas they used to show the entire thread). And, worse, numbering them such that the first appearing comment (not the first comment on the thread) is #1.
I wouldn't mind if the feeds were displaying the last, say, 200 (well, preferably 499) comments, but the current state is — rather useless, at the rate at which I check back vs. the rate of new comments.
Regardless of whether the change to not-everything is on purpose, please make the numbering stable and consistent with the regular pages.
Something looks funny: The first 11 comments are missing from the feed for this thread.
Michael I #37: Thank you.
I am reasonably confident that the concept of p-zombies is nonsense (that is not to say that p-zombies do not exist, rather that the distinction between p-zombies and not-p-zombies (not NP-zombies, sorry) does not exist, in exactly the same way that the concept of free will is nonsense (which you (by which I mean the reader of this comment who might be replying to it (as opposed to anything said about the average lurker (who is unobservable (except by the intervention of a Mod or Mods) to the thread but affected by it and therefore like the consciousness the p-zombie lacks))) likely disagree with (which I infer from the observed religious inclinations (though of course there is difference between philosophical consideration, actual belief, professed belief, belief in belief, and participation in a community)))), but I don't know enough (well, anything) about Calvinism in order to work this belief into a topical joke.
I looked at that list of properties and was bothered that it didn't mention that 127 was the largest number representable in 7 bits (e.g. 8 - 1 for parity or whatever, the good old ASCII space). I'd gone all the way (or pretty close) to the Wikipedia edit screen before noticing the last sentence in the Mersenne prime paragraph, which isn't quite the same thing, but close enough and also relevant.
So I took a moment to hyperlink and pedantify it.
It didn't occur to me until a few days ago to look up what “redux†actually means. I'd always had it vaguely associated with “reduce†and figured from context it meant something like an echo: a reoccurrence, but smaller/more essential.
Don't worry, it can only get cheddar.
C. Wingate #469: It should be possible to create an encryption system which does not have that problem. What you need to do is encrypt the message using an ordinary encryption algorithm, then put the output through a procedure that can turn an arbitrary bitstream into "looked like phonetic codes", which shouldn't be too hard if they accepted arbitrary text with merely language-like vowel/consonant/whitespace mix.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 28 |
| 2008 | 27 |
| 2007 | 4 |
| 2006 | 5 |
| 2005 | 4 |
Total: 68 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Kevin Reid:
Show all comments by Kevin Reid.