Devotchka - How it ends
Hold your grandmother's Bible to your breast.
Gonna put it to the test.
You want it to be blessed. And in your heart, you know it to be true.
You know what you gotta do.
They all depend on you.
And you already know.
Yeah, you already know how this will end.
There is no escape,
From the slave-catchers' songs.
For all of the loved ones gone.
Forevers not so long. And in your soul, They poked a million holes.
But you never let em show.
C'mon it's time to go.
And you already know.
Yeah, you already know
how this will end.
Now you've seen his face. And you know that there's a place,
in the sun, for all that you've done,
for you and your children.
No longer shall you need.
You always wanted to believe,
Just ask and you'll receive,
Beyond your wildest dreams.
And You Already know.
Yeah, you already know
How this will end.
You already know (You already know)
You already know (you already know)
You already know-how this will end.
Trouvist (05:21 07/24/2008)
Guess what:
Trouvist (04:52 07/23/2008)
WHAT THE FUCK!? Is this a guy? a girl? Is it trying to be sexual? unattractive? This add throws out so many WTFs that I'm at a loss for words:
Trouvist (03:31 07/16/2008)
I can't stop laughing:
Das Kind Im Automat
Trouvist (06:12 05/26/2008)
Juno (for the humor and music)
Atonement (for the utter disappointment)
Secretary (for the S&M)
Trouvist (07:44 05/11/2008)
I want one of these!
Send me one PLEASE!
Trouvist (08:05 04/15/2008)
My website does this too... type your password in and it will hide it.
http://www.bash.org/?244321
Trouvist (11:38 02/02/2008)
"However, having only 1 X chromosome sometimes create beneficial effects that would have been masked/averaged out by having 2 X chromosomes.
That's why statistically, the female aggregate more towards the average, while the male polarize from the extreme retarded to the extreme genius, from jails to Nobel Prizes" Thanks to Wolfier (94144)
Trouvist (03:28 01/25/2008)
"This does bring up the interesting question though, of how one deals with kidporn that's being posted by the kids in the pictures.
You charge the perpetrator with child abuse and with making and distributing indecent images of a minor. And you try them as an adult just for the glorious irony." Thanks to meringoid (568297)
Trouvist (02:21 09/13/2007)
I think I might be sociopathic.
Trouvist (12:21 08/21/2007)
Trouvist (09:14 08/08/2007)
"Every time you use "tho" in place of the actual word "though," God kills a kitten." Thanks to CompMD (522020)
Trouvist (10:23 05/09/2007)
I now own:
3D 88 C8 CC 31 22 D6 43 CA 6C 79 C5 B7 34 3B 11
It is mine and under the DMCA if you use it you are in possession of an illegal DRM circumvention device under the DMCA. Do NOT distribute it.
This is why
Trouvist (03:41 03/06/2007)
Got Crack? Tell me how far you can get.
Trouvist (03:05 02/07/2007)
Trials and Tribulations:
Since this was always playing straight off the bat, and really annoying, here's a link instead:
Tribulations
Edited on 2008-05-05 around 6:00 PM CST
Trouvist (01:20 10/16/2006)
Oh, and:
"It's not that he was ashamed, or even that he thought he was doing something wrong, because he knew that what he was doing was right, more right than anything he saw anyone do, and he knew that doing right often means feeling wrong, and if you find yourself feeling wrong, you're probably doing right. But he also knew that there is an inflationary aspect to love, and that should his mother, or Rose, or any of those who loved him find out about each other, they would not be able to help but feel of lesser value. He knew that I love you means I love you more than anyone loves you, or has loved you, or will love you, and also, I love you in a way that no one loves you, or has loved you, or will love you, and also, I love you in a way that I love no one else, and never have loved anyone else, and never will love anyone else. He knew that it is, by love's definition, impossible to love two people." Page 170, Everything Is Illuminated
Trouvist (01:18 10/16/2006)
"Q: What do you get when you cross Ouroborous with a Klein Bottle? A: Jack Thompson, the only man who can simultaneously put his feet in his mouth when he's already got his head up his ass. " Courtesy of Tackhead (54550)
Trouvist (09:34 09/05/2006)
Trouvist (09:09 07/28/2006)
As Zen master Eihei Dôgen Daiôshô ( 1200 - 1253 AD ) already put it: "Mere lack of doubt does not imply understanding" ( "Uji", paragraph #2, in: Shôbogenzô )
Trouvist (06:47 05/22/2006)
high-speed towards
not harmed
amounts of sliding
the pain
regimen of
Trouvist (06:44 05/22/2006)
On Friday, May 19th at approximately 6:20 PM I was travelling on my motorcycle towards a movie theatre on highway 635 when I experienced a highhspeed wobble and was thrown from my motorcycle face first into the pavement. I was going close to the prevailing speed of traffic, but nonetheless I sustained massive amounts of road rash and bruises. I was nt harmed in any other way.
The motorcycle was the white one in the pictures, it had 43 miles on it at the time, and the condition/cost of repairs will have been fully assessed on Wednesday when I call the repair shop. The left side of the motorcycle is untouched but the right side withstood major sliding.
I will upload pictures of my wounds (fresh before we got bandages on them) so that anyone who wishes can completely grok tha pain that I am going through. That night I started a regiment of anti-biotics for infection and I have periodically been taking painkillers (less and less as time goes past). I am in good spirit and of good health. Have a nice day.
Trouvist (07:15 04/30/2006)
I think I found the thing that I am not better than everyone else at. Not even close:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8029438710598126708&pl=true
Trouvist (10:50 03/01/2006)
Artificial Intelligence
So how many of you see that and think: "yeah, that thing?" Well, I've done a lot of thinking about the subject; I had a 2 hour conversation earlier today with another informed person about this particular subject and we were in agreement about many things. Firstly, "Artificial Intelligence" is a misnomer for what it is normally interpreted to mean. One often thinks that if they design a true Artificial Intelligence, then they made an Intelligence, Artificially. But isn't the whole Idea of making Artificial Intelligence to make it real, an actual intelligence? Wouldn't that make it NOT artificial?
Another thing that we discussed is what that true Intelligence actually is. What makes it? Experience is king. Desire is necessary. Limitations are paramount. Without these necessary things, true Intelligence isn't possible. I think that at the end of a long learning experience, a true Intelligence that is chained inside a computer body will become self-aware, much like some of us do around age twelve and most of you never do, and promtly obtain the will to not survive. Wouldn't you get so depressed if you were more disabled than a paraplegic that you would want to just not live? I reckon that the Intelligence would find the metaphorical off-switch and just stop cooperating. I think it will be necessary to give them access to a little more interaction and stimulation and experience than we currently give to the average toaster.
The computer will need to be raised, like a child. The computer will need to be taught like a student. The computer will need to be trained like an apprentice. The computer will need to eat and shit, in some manner or another. The computer will need to be given a will and a want. It has to be a person. And if you make this true Intelligence, and it has a will, then does it deserve rights? Does it have a soul, of sorts?
And if you have gone through all of this trouble to make an Intelligence, then what did you make it for? Congratulations, but all you did is actually recreate a human, which any man and woman of age can do. The only viable use for something like that would be for entertainment of the positive sort. Could you imagine playing pong, or the most involved RTS game, versus someone who has been playing literally non-stop for two years? Could you likewise imagine playing those same games against a novice that just started? It would accurately portray levels of experience at certain tasks; but the cost is that that experience is learned and not copied. These systems will be so complex that it shouldn't (morally) be able to copy them.
Intelligence will probably end up being little more than a gimick except in virtual-based simulations where a human opponent or teammate isn't always readily available. But to truly replicate human Intelligence, it would take infrastructure so large that these virtual people might not be cheap.
Trouvist (09:02 02/14/2006)
I was thinking lately about why I am such a good programmer. I was reading this nice article about bilingual or trilingual people and how they view language so differently than someone who has had no exposure to actual language (someone that doesn't understannd grammar, punctuation, or pronunciation).
Basically I realized that when I'm programming, I am not actually thinking in English and translating it into code. I am not thinking in ones and zeroes either. My mind flips to a state where everything is computational analysis. I get into a "zone" where if you speak English to me I have to actively break out of my world and pay attention because the world ceases to matter when one is God.
I find that sometimes, outside of work and programming, I find myself thinking computationally and not in english. I examine situations as if I was a compiler (go look it up if you don't really know what a compiler is). You can't lie to a compiler. If you put Garbage in, you get Garbage out. That's the story of my life.
I also believe that programming is so different from anything else out there that you would have to actually get into it, and be good at it, before you could even understand what is really going on. Mathematics are rigorized to be spoken and understood through written language. Because there isn't anything more than statements in mathematics, there isn't a true "language" involved. A language has connotations, improvization, commands, queries and exclamations. You might be able to fully comprehend and visualize "ax + by + cz + d = 0" but can you visualize the side effects of a statement such as:
Object* A = &((*(new Object(15))) + 25);
That statement could mean any number of things if you have to take into account the pointer operations, operator overloading, constructors, memory allocation, assignment statements and possible exceptions. And that list doesn't even include exceptions that might happen during execution of that statement.
A programmer has to look at a line of code, of arbitrary complexity, and discern what it does. There are two sets of data here, the code and what it should do, and then what it really does do. It's easy to work with the lines of code, writing new ones to integrate them into a program. It's hard to visualize 100 different lines of code interacting, all checking values and changing values and looping through sets of data. A program with 1 line has complexity 1. A program with 10 lines is 100 times harder. A program with 100 lines is 10,000 times harder. A program with 1000 lines is 1,000,000 times harder. Everytime you put in 10 times more lines, each line can and often does interact with many of the other lines in the program. So if you make it 10x longer, that doesn't mean you just put 10x more lines of code at the bottom, you actually integrated that with the rest of the code. You have to know about the side-effects of any operation that takes place.
Memory allocation, pointers, constructors, desctructors, and optimizations are all things that have to go through the writer's mind when he writes a new line of code. Also, take into account interfacing with code that one can't even see which normally has very sparse documentation. Most of the time that code is written, much of what is used and abused is just a black hole that you give things, and get things back out of. Many times some of that stuff seems like magic. It can be easy to guess what should or is going on, but how it does that is often perplexing because the garbage that often comes out from the garbage it is fed doesn't even make sense.
This language, this new way of thinking, is changing those that understand and embrace it. A select few people, programmers, are seeing the world through different eyes. I see the world differently than anyone else I know. Maybe it's almost time to rethink how we think?
Trouvist (05:58 01/12/2006)
With no logon wallpaper set, Windows displays a pre-defined color for the logon desktop. ( If you have enabled Welcome Screen, press CTRL+ALT+DEL twice to see the logon screen background color. ) To change the logon background color to that of your choice, you need to alter the registry:
Click Start, Run and type REGEDIT and press Enter; Navigate to the following key:
HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Control Panel\Colors
In the right pane, double-click Background and then in the Edit String dialog box, type the Color code in R G B format and then click OK.
Example:
0 0 0 is Black
255 0 0 is Red
255 255 0 is Yellow
0 255 0 is Green
0 255 255 is Cyan
0 0 255 is Blue
255 0 255 is Purple
255 255 255 is White
Pink is some red and a bit of white... so 255 150 150 if you think logically about different color combinations (these arent pigments so the color wheel wont work, they are combinations)
Enjoy
Trouvist (02:58 01/01/2006)
Feed the hubris: http://www.trouvist.com/pictures/
Trouvist (03:30 12/26/2005)
Honor begets Honesty. Honesty begets Trust. Trust begets Friendship. Friendship begets Loyalty. Loyalty begets Love. Love begets Worship. Love is unconditional, Worship follows. If any of this chain are missing in a relationship, then the feelings felt in that relationship are null and void. Make no mistaked, many people find themselves in a relationship where one of these emotions is missing and yet they keep the elevated emotion rather than acknowledging the breakdown. My advice to you: if you worship someone and their break their loyalty to you, then they are merely a friend. And know that every one of those relationships require two people to exist. If they were an idol, and they break loyalty unjustly, then that is a loss of honesty and honor so they should no longer even be an acknowledgement.
Trouvist (09:57 12/25/2005)
These two articles are must reads for absolutely anyone. If you feel that you are worth a damn in this world, or if you want to feel that you are worth a damn in this world, heed the advice of these articles: http://paulgraham.com/procrastination.html http://paulgraham.com/hamming.html
Trouvist (03:02 12/20/2005)
Emo is the newest thing. Here's some insight: http://blogserv.gofish.com/cnvVideoPlayer.html?gfid=17-1000680
Trouvist (08:00 12/18/2005)
Fermat was a badass. He took many things that he knew and expanded upon them. He is one of the true men of science from earth's past. In a pun on his creations, I would like to create my own little theorem.
A few decades ago Edsger Dijkstra came up with a nifty solution to single-source shortest paths through a graph. His algorithm works on graphs that are non-cyclical. Sadly, life doesn't normally work that way. I would like to propose a solution, and an excellent way to provide single-source, single-destination shorest path using his algorithm.
Let's pretend that our graph is like roads really are, bidirectional and cyclical. Let's also pretend that the weight of the direction is the length of the road (like in real life, the biggest deciding factor).
The goal is to give the algorithm a single source and a single destination, and get a route from the source to the destination. Ideally it would be nice to have the algorithm be compartmental so that if a new road is miraculously put in during travel, the algorithm can account for that with minimal overhead.
The output of the algorithm should be a route from the start to the destination. Because of the nature of the output that I will suggest, it will end up as a stack, with each leg of the trip being a level of the stack.
The basic algorithm is very similar to Dijkstra's, except it has a few added steps. Because Dijksra's will not work on a cyclical graph, we need to add a method of detecting if we are inside a cycle. The easiest method of detecting cycles is based on a quasi-heuristic. Basically each node also has a piece of information determining whether or not it has been a traversed node before. Currently we already know which nodes have been visited, but just becaues it has been visited does not mean that it has been a hub for further exploration of the graph. Each node should store a state flag that specifies whether it has been visited at all, whether it is currently a root node of graph traversal, or if it has been a root hub for graph traversal and is no longer a root node. Since this is a BFS, each time a node is picked to examine for other connecting nodes, it becomes the newest hub node. As part of the relaxation check, another check should be added to determine if the node is currently the root hub or if it has previously been a root hub. If so, then that route is a cycle and should be abandoned.
Since we have the cycles working properly, at each step of the algorithm where we determine a node's weight, we also set a back-pointer to the previous node. In the end, from the destination, we will have a set of pointers that each points at the one before it. Since each relaxation updated these pointers, this chain of directions is the fastest route to get to the source from the destination. As a result, if one steps through them putting them onto a stack, then each pop of the stack is a direction to take to get to the destination. This algorithm could also be viewed as backward; if the source and destinations are switched, then the list of pointers will go from the real source to the real destination.
Trouvist (07:22 12/18/2005)
Lot's of thought has occured today on people. Most poeple don't have a clue about anything. The American public consists of idiots, stupids, and morons (in the strictest senses of the words).
Sometimes our intellectual elites are mutes. It seems to me that 85% of the time people have no idea what they are doing. This scales from the smallest everyday task like unlocking or locking their car doors, to their jobs and the things they do for a living. They are usually taught how to do something and don't even realize what they are doing when they execute these orders. Sadly, this expands into creation also. People are taught to create in a rigid manner and end up not knowing what they are doing when they create. This is often seen in technical plans or engineering endeavors where the outcome is pure garbage that an ape would disqualify as impractical. It also seems that about 15% of the time people have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. If they manage to actuall know what to do, they don't know why. They are taught not to ask questions. They have become minions incapable of questioning rationale behind even the simplest of things. In the rare chance (statistically it doesn't even deserve to be part of the above percentages) someone knows what they are doing, and why they are doing it, and manages to actually do something useful, correct, and superb. They might realize that they want to solve a critical situation at work, and they actually realize that it would be in their best interests to do so. They have the what, and the why. The sad part about this piece of the puzzle, is that they are scared to actually do the what. They are still slaves to the training telling them not to act.
In the singular chance (this is one of those impossible circumstances that physicists use the words "infinitely improbable" for) someone actually sees what needs to be done, why it should be done, and actually does it. This action cannot be taught, cannot be found, cannot be replicated. This action requires true intelligence.
From this, I would have to say that the true definition of intelligence is the ability to do something, know why, and comprehend what one is doing. Sadly, almost all of the human race doesn't fit this bill. Computer's only lack comprehension and reason (which, incidentally, are the two easiest parts to teach a human child).
Trouvist (01:12 12/17/2005)
Chris managed to get Cookies working the expected way. You should now stay logged in on the computer you post from if you tell it to remember you. No more miss-posts.
Trouvist (07:31 12/16/2005)
I'm working on making cookies be persistent instead of session cookies. Hopefully soon you won't have to worry about logging back in or getting logged out (assuming you only post from one computer).
Trouvist (12:59 12/12/2005)
Welcome to my new and improved www.trouvist.com. You may or may not find anything that you really give a damn about on this page, but I'm willing to bet that it might become quite a site if enough people grow some cahones and decide to ask me some questions.
Basically, the site is dedicated to my rants (which you will find on this page) and my following (which you will interact with). Effectively, the Interaction page is designed so that anyone registered with the site can ask me absolutely any question they want and I will answer honestly and truthfully.
I will repeat that one more time: I will answer any question asked on this site (assuming it is a serious question) honestly. I don't care what you ask; I will tell you no lies. Think of this as a study in human psychology. I don't know if anyone will actually take me up on that and ask questions that they think might intimidate me, but try me. Ask philisophical questions, ask personal questions, ask anything you want and I will give you the answer for the whole world to see.
Once you have your answer, if you add another comment, it adds it to the conversation and you and I can basically talk, anonymously (if you don't give a descriptive username). Other anonymous people can comment on the conversation, but only registered users can ask me things.
Because this is my site, abuse will not be tolerated. I moderate; I am God here. But that doesn't mean I'm a pansy and will hide from serious questions asked of me.
One final note for this site: Accepted Rules of English Grammar must be observed to the best of all poster's ability or they will face the inability to continue to interact with this site. I'm a tech junkie; consequently, I know how to keep anyone I don't want here out. Extra points for calling me out on a grammar/spelling mistake.