×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

King James Programming

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the though-i-walk-through-the-valley-of-the-shadow-of-regular-expressions dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 184

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "What do you get when you train a Markov chain on the King James Bible and a copy of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs? King James Programming — a tumblr of auto-generated pseudo-scripture (or pseudo-compsci lessons). Some examples: -- 'The LORD is the beginning (or prefix) of the code for the body of the procedure.' -- 'More precisely, if P and Q are polynomials, let O1 be the order of blessed.' -- ''In APL all data are represented as arrays, and there shall they see the Son of man, in whose sight I brought them out.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hey!!! (5, Funny)

thewils (463314) | about a year ago | (#45622959)

It actually makes more sense!

Re:Hey!!! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623041)

It actually makes more sense!

Which book?

Re:Hey!!! (4, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#45623241)

Blessed be the Lisp makers, for they shall inherit the special forms.

Re:Hey!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623769)

Jesus himself said, "I am the Lambda."

Re:Hey!!! (3, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#45624725)

"the lisp makers?"

"well, I think he was referring to makers of all nested paren languages."

Re:Hey!!! (5, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#45623255)

I love my new signature...

Re:Hey!!! (4, Insightful)

Thomas Miconi (85282) | about a year ago | (#45623419)

That stuff totally needs to go into a fortune file. And then be included in the default fortune files of all major distros.

Re:Hey!!! (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | about a year ago | (#45624433)

Given their repository [github.com] it should be trivial.

Re:Hey!!! (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#45624729)

"help! I'm being held prisoner in a markov chain gang!"

Jesix (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45622977)

They should use this to develop Jesix, or whatever it was called. You know, that Linux distro where they changed potentially offensive commands like "mount".

Re:Jesix (5, Funny)

citab (1677284) | about a year ago | (#45623095)

What about the Sermon on the /mnt?

or /mnt/sermon?

Re:Jesix (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45623293)

Taking offense to words like "mount" has nothing to do with the Bible. Those are CHURCH teachings. There is a difference.

Re:Jesix (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45623367)

You know, I really wasn't trolling but I suppose it was inevitable that someone would try to mark it "damn you".

Re:Jesix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623683)

And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” -- Matthew 15:10-11.

Or maybe that's saying that you have to swallow, not spit. The Bible can be cryptic sometimes.

Re:Jesix (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45623755)

And he called the people to him and said to them, âoeHear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.â -- Matthew 15:10-11.

Or maybe that's saying that you have to swallow, not spit. The Bible can be cryptic sometimes.

But that's my whole point. The Bible doesn't say words like "mount" are offensive. PEOPLE decide that. And most commonly, people who preach from pulpits.

Re:Jesix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624587)

Am I the only person other than citab that knows that "mount" in this context means "mountian"? Way ruin a pun.

Re:Jesix (2)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#45623961)

So mount is bad but what about "dicked" as in, "I got dicked around by that asshole."

Addition of /usr/dict/kjv.words (exhaustive)

http://pudge.net/jesux/ [pudge.net]

Man, these guys are total fucktards:

- Login screen has full text to Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, with Christian and American symbols

- qmail replaces sendmail as the standard MTA (sendmail was written by a prominent homosexual)

- No encryption provided; Christians have nothing to hide

The one positive piece of information I could find on the site was this:

This page last updated Wednesday, September 29, 1999, 13:51:07 PDT

Re:Jesix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624061)

Not sure why you think there's no connection between the KJV, Jesus, and church teachings?

Anyway, sex is a beautiful, natural thing (except for the sweaty, smelly, sticky parts). In spite of that, a lot of Christians - I hesitate to claim the majority - hate to be reminded that they are animals.

Re:Jesix (0)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45624265)

I decline your category offer.

We are nefesh chaya, the implications of which I won't get into here, as you won't be interested and evolution will inevitably sort you out anyway.

However, I will not argue with your self-categorization as an animal. Particularly since you do so because somebody made a chart with authoritative-sounding Latin names and put them in a tree-shaped chart and all.

I'll get back with you on the implications for yourself sometime after Cladistics destroys the mess of systemic arbitrariness of Linnean Taxonomy.

Re:Jesix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624337)

However, I will not argue with your self-categorization as an animal. Particularly since you do so because somebody made a chart with authoritative-sounding Latin names and put them in a tree-shaped chart and all.

No, I don't care about charts. Animals, as you are well aware, are generally multi-cellular carbon-based organisms that are born, breathe, metabolize food, excrete waste products, grow bodies through a somatic line, reproduce via a germ line through genetic recombination, and eventually die. Humans are part of the mammal subset of animals, meaning we walk upright, grow hair, nurse our young, reproduce sexually, etc. Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.

Perhaps you meant to argue that humans are more than just animals. I can't argue that point since there's really no evidence that we have any traits qualitatively unique among mammals except for abstract speech.

Re:Jesix (-1, Offtopic)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45624431)

You seem to be confusing the issue of your worldview lacking any reason to have a distinct category of "human", with my non-necessity of categorizing them as a subset of "animal".

They share attributes, that is true. However, much as I don't have to categorize a "car" as a "truck" because they both have engines, drivetrains, etc., I in fact do not have to categorize "human" as a subset of "animal".

There really is no epistemological, scientific, or other force on Earth compelling this categorization. You have an arbitrary, if widely-held, construct, which you assent to largely for the reasons stated. You've been, quite simply, effectively hypnotized by repetition into considering it "self-evident".

And, yes, there is a great deal of evidence we have qualitatively unique traits (though, indeed, from your worldview you are indeed incapable of producing any). Simply none you'll accept as evidence. Fortunately, your non-acceptance of evidence, in no way lessens the fact of it being evidence.

Re:Jesix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624647)

Well, "animal" is just a word... like "nefesh chaya." It's that abstract language thing I mentioned. Either word will do if it serves just as a label for whatever a human being is. Neither one really tells you anything about our true nature in and of itself.

So, it doesn't really matter how you categorize us. Categories are artificial, flesh is real, and there is no denying these facts that I was so rude to remind you of. Humans are animals by any reasonable definition of the word.

Re:Jesix (1)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45624817)

Fair enough.

I'm a little puzzled though. Why would I consider your position "rude" to me? You're the animal.

Since we both agree on that point, I'm not entirely sure what your fundamental motivation is to attempting to enforce on me a category you yourself say would be "artificial".

Do you?

Re:Jesix (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#45625043)

Not sure if youre aware, but theres an entire book of the bible dedicated to how sex is a beautiful thing.

Still strawmen are always fun i guess.

Re:Jesix (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#45623763)

That was code for 'orgy' back in the day ;-) /ducks

Re:Jesix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623787)

The real OS for believers is not Linux... To really chasten oneself, one needs the "other" system. Where the patience is tried constantly and temptation for ungodly curses is strongest. Only that system is kept alive by prayers and duct-tape. Linux is boring comparatively, tempting to lure one to the mortal sin of sloth.

Re:Jesix (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#45624205)

So you want to worship in a place with stained-glass windows?

Re:Jesix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624317)

I didn't say I am abeliever ;-) I was already seduced by the simplicity of sanity and later cursed by SELinux

Re:Jesix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624191)

I thought was restricted to the "Satan" monitoring software, which had the "Santa" display option.

Interesting (5, Interesting)

sharknado (3217097) | about a year ago | (#45623033)

Some of the marketing crap my company produces is worse than the quotes generated in TFA. ...I wonder if I could make a business out of outsourcing our marketing team with this algorithm...I'll suggest to my boss and see what he says.

Re:Interesting (5, Funny)

sharknado (3217097) | about a year ago | (#45623097)

Some of the marketing crap my company produces is worse than the quotes generated in TFA. ...I wonder if I could make a business out of outsourcing our marketing team with this algorithm...I'll suggest to my boss and see what he says.

Update: It didn't go over so well.

Re:Interesting (1)

chromas (1085949) | about a year ago | (#45623403)

Probably because they'd have to pay the algorithm more than the marketing team.

oh noes! (4, Insightful)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year ago | (#45623039)

Scientology has a competitor! somehow, someone somewhere will take this way too seriously.

Re:oh noes! (2)

rourin_bushi (816292) | about a year ago | (#45623057)

Man, I sure hope so. This thing is pure gold.

Markov Chains (0, Flamebait)

pieisgood (841871) | about a year ago | (#45623059)

Wow, a series of probabilistic transitions between words has given us a mishmash of programming and bible gibberish. This is the expected result, but isn't even novel. You could do this with any N texts and get out gibberish. I much prefer markov chains as a way to produce music.

Re:Markov Chains (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623319)

Wow a series of synaptic interactions lead to you to an expected conclusion that isn't even novel. You must be fun at parties.
 
(Preferring Markov chains to produce music is like preferring light to produce clouds rather than projected films. There's not really a right or wrong, but your preference is for the choice that is least likely to provoke or offend.)

Re:Markov Chains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623353)

I meant the visual image of clouds in the sky, not the clouds themselves. Damn caffeine withdrawal.

Re:Markov Chains (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#45624573)

It's okay, the light creates the clouds too.

Re:Markov Chains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623369)

"There's not really a right or wrong, but your preference is for the choice that is least likely to provoke or offend."

My aesthetic-algorithmic analysis of his preference leads me to conclude that this disposition is predominately due to him not being a general dick.

Re:Markov Chains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623697)

Wow, basic particles move and do stuff.

The fact is that the value of everything - absolutely everything - comes down to taste.

The easiest way to enjoy something is not to get your panties in a bunch when someone else doesn't enjoy it.

Re:Markov Chains (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#45623439)

It's not supposed to be novel, it's supposed to be funny.
In that, it succeeds quite well.

Re: Markov Chains (1)

Oscaro (153645) | about a year ago | (#45623499)

Not novel indeed, I saw this more than twenty years ago on The Practice of Computer programming by Kernighan and Pike. Still funny, though.

Blasphemy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623065)

The word of the Lord is not to be altered or trivialized like this

May He have mercy on your pathetic souls

Re:Blasphemy (5, Funny)

narcc (412956) | about a year ago | (#45623119)

SICP is popular right now, but I'd hardly call it divinely inspired.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45623287)

Particularly given it doesn't even offer a solution to the Halting Problem.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year ago | (#45624109)

"right now"? SICP has been popular since the 70s, and with good reason.

Re:Blasphemy (2)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | about a year ago | (#45623231)

As a conservative-leaning, bible-thumping Southern Baptist, I find TFA and your (probably deliberate troll) response hilarious.

Re:Blasphemy (2)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about a year ago | (#45623445)

The Lord already took mercy on my soul when my ex-wife moved over 3000 miles away. Then "BoB" Dobbs came along with his pipe and helped me sort out the rest.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#45624691)

The SubGenius must have slack. (ware)

Re:Blasphemy (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#45623481)

Do you read the unaltered bible or are you using one of the many translations?
Languages do not map 1:1 (otherwise, machine translation would be easy and perfect), so any translation inevitably alters the meaning of the original text.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | about a year ago | (#45623695)

Do you read the unaltered bible or are you using one of the many translations?
Languages do not map 1:1 (otherwise, machine translation would be easy and perfect), so any translation inevitably alters the meaning of the original text.

Uhm, what exactly is this "unaltered bible". Even the King James verison, which is the closest there is to a "standard" bible for the English language, contains more than a few translations errors (when compared to much older Greek texts from which it was translated), as well as some deliberate alterations.

Re:Blasphemy (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#45624025)

"You have never experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."

Re:Blasphemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624129)

Even the Greek manuscripts do not agree with each other on what the original New Testament writers actually wrote. There is less disagreement about the Hebrew of the Old Testament, at least back to where the books were collected into something of the form of the Old Testament we know and love.

Re:Blasphemy (2)

E++99 (880734) | about a year ago | (#45624185)

Uhm, what exactly is this "unaltered bible". Even the King James verison, which is the closest there is to a "standard" bible for the English language...

Um, I'm pretty sure that the Bible was not written in English and that the King James version is a translation.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#45624703)

Yes, but the KJV was the translation into English that was made at perhaps a high point in English culture, so to speak. Which makes it sort of a standard.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45624383)

Show me a case in the bible, or any competent translation of any text, where the translation meaningfully changes the conclusions you would draw as to its overall meaning from reading it.

And please don't tell me you've never even thought about applying this first step to intellectual honesty on this issue, given all those other texts (which, oddly, seem to get a pass based on the sole criterion that they are non-religious) surrounding you.

Re:Blasphemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624689)

idiot

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624713)

Show me a case in the bible, or any competent translation of any text, where the translation meaningfully changes the conclusions you would draw as to its overall meaning from reading it.

Just look at the controversy over the translation of the Hebrew word "alma" variously as "virgin" or "maiden" or "young woman."

Your conclusions may be very different if you choose the translation "virgin" over the alternatives!

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45624911)

How so?

See above.

Re:Blasphemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45625251)

Because if you translate it as anything other than virgin, you remove the entire idea of miraculous virgin birth from the religion. I'd say that would alter Christianity quite considerably, particularly the Catholic church.

Does it change the ten commandments or the teachings of Jesus? No but it significantly alters the context - and somewhat undermines his claim to divinity.

Re:Blasphemy (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45624737)

How about the "virgin Mary" which can just as well be translated as the "young woman Mary" from the (known) original? I give you that the same error is in the Septuaginta (the Greek "original" most translations draw from) and that due to this it has been elevated to dogma level, but the case stands: The Hebrew ha-almah (which appears in the prophecies of Isaiah that predict the arrival of Jesus) means just "young woman" and makes no claims about the sexual experience of said woman.

Not to mention that Isaiah made that prophecy in the present tense, not the future. But that's beyond the scope of this argument.

You might consider that a nontrivial translation error considering the fuss being made about the status of Mary's maidenhead (and the general fuss the RCC makes about sex in general).

If needed I can look up some more (some are really hilarious, especially when it comes to homosexuality or sex in general), but that's the only one I could remember.

Re:Blasphemy (1)

Empiric (675968) | about a year ago | (#45624905)

Given the cultural norms of the time, we can assume she was a virgin, or at minimum, the text was presenting someone who would in fact have a virgin for such a significant religious role, even if we stipulated your contention it referred to a different event. Yes, I've been over this many times. "Behold, a young woman shall conceive!" makes no sense in terms of an extraordinary event being presented, and the text is clearly intended to convey an exceptional event. To claim otherwise is just being pointlessly contrarian.

But, really, you haven't addressed the question at all. In what sense would this make some fundamental difference to the message, i.e. resurrection, salvation, the nature of God, etc.?

"It would indicate a possible difference in interpretation" does not meet the criteria of an actually-significant difference in the overall content as received.

Re:Blasphemy (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45625207)

It most likely would not change anything about the life of Jesus or how he is seen as some kind of "special" person. But it would change a lot on how religious people perceive virginity as something special. And no, "Behold a young woman shall conceive" is nothing special. And I somehow doubt that it was meant to be. Considering the value of women back in those days, I'd be very surprised if he wanted to draw much attention to Jesus' mother. It's actually a rather insignificant part of the prophecy, if anything, it's the lead-in rather than an important part of it. If you read the part (I guess we're referring to Isaiah 7:14 here, correct me if I'm wrong), you'll notice that the whole part about his birth seems more to have a temporal meaning rather than one of origin, that the future king is yet to be born and not already amongst them, rather than putting emphasis on him being born by that certain young woman|virgin. That's not the focus of the prophecy. It gets clearer if you read it in Hebrew, the meaning is rather one of a young woman who has not yet given birth. She may or may not be virgin, but the important bit is rather that this future king will be her firstborn, not so much the question whether she is virgin or not. The emphasis on the virginity is missing, the emphasis is on this future kind being her firstborn, something that was actually of high importance back then (compare for example the last plague of Egypt where all firstborn are killed, or Kain and Abel, where Kain is the firstborn and hence should be loved more than Abel, which leads ultimately to his jealousy, something that would by no means have been justified had he been the second born son).

But back to the change of effects this would have on the Church. It would not change the story much. Jesus would still be Jesus, no matter whether Mary is a virgin. What would maybe change, though, is our general moral situation and what we consider "moral" and "immoral". The emphasis on virginity would be much less. The same applies to other parts of the Bible where certain people, actions or omissions are allegedly "sinful", wrong or an offense to God. At any rate, I would not even remotely allow something like the King James version of the Bible be some kind of authority. Not even the Vulgata, not even the Septuaginta is beyond doubt. No matter what Pope or dogma says. Unless someone finds the original scripture, written by the original author who allegedly had some connection to God himself, doubt remains that errors were introduced by translation, or worse, deliberately added to further some agenda. Just think of the various Apocrypha written by "heretic" groups (especially common and popular amongst the Gnostics) where Peter, Thomas or even Judas allegedly wrote gospels that, surprise, surprise, further the Gnostic world view.

How can we be certain that something similar did not happen with the canon books somewhere in the millenia since their creation?

Re:Blasphemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45625211)

I think you're speaking too fast when you comment the norms of the time.

A lot of people have the misconception, that people were puritan around the commonly accepted date of birth.
I claim, It was more diverse then, than it is now.

Re:Blasphemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624273)

Indeed, the words of the great Unix Patriarchs must to be debased by such blasphemy.

I've seen someone code this way (2)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about a year ago | (#45623101)

Used biblical references for branching tags. The code (assembly) would then have 'goto john', 'goto paul', etc spread about. It was pointed out to her that this made maintenance more difficult, and she needed to use more meaningful, informative tags. She did not, however, use 'hell' as one.

Re:I've seen someone code this way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623141)

The code (assembly) would then have 'goto john', 'goto paul', etc spread about. It was pointed out to her that this made maintenance more difficult, and she needed to use more meaningful, informative tags.

goto yoko?

Re:I've seen someone code this way (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45624543)

goto dengo

Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon (2, Informative)

cloud.pt (3412475) | about a year ago | (#45623111)

Also in the day of the LORD’s house, all the words of Alan Perlis, “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon.”

Re:Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon (1)

cloud.pt (3412475) | about a year ago | (#45623243)

I have to self-reply to this since a mod decided this should be tagged offtopic. NEWSFLASH: that's a quote from the tumblr you dumblr mod!

Do it with the Koran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623233)

I dare you.

Oh, wait...

Despite the JEW owned media telling us that muslims are 'just like us', they will, of course, KILL you, if you do this with their 'magic book'.

Re:Do it with the Koran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623583)

I dare you.

Oh, wait...

Despite the nominally JEW owned media telling us that muslims are 'just like us', they will, of course, KILL you, if you do this with their 'magic book'.

Fixed that for ya...

Awesome (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | about a year ago | (#45623235)

Oh man this a special kind of awesome right here!

Satan (1)

TempleOS (3394245) | about a year ago | (#45623259)

Satan is silencing God. Satan will be punished, fucken retard.

Funny Algorithms (3, Informative)

Oscaro (153645) | about a year ago | (#45623303)

This has always been one of my favorite algorithms. Saw it the first time many years ago on The Practice of Programming, by Kernighan and Pike. Always makes me laugh. You can use it to generate phrases or even psuedo-words that "sound like" any given real language. I use it to generate passwords that are easy to remember but cannot be found in any dictionary, of "fantasy names" for games. Have fun and plose some stilture on your cince! http://www.ploodood.net/ [ploodood.net]

Best Joke In Years (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about a year ago | (#45623315)

Someone should work out the licensing with the publishers of "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and create a full manuscript. I would buy it and put it right between to my copy of Principia Discorida and The Book Of The Subgenius.

Re:Best Joke In Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624553)

And this book [amazon.com]

Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? (3, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45623405)

As a scientist I always test the null hypothesis to quantify usefulness of my research. They did a bunch of work, but is it any better than a simple randomized selection of text?

As a quick test of the null hypothesis, below I have selected a random bible verse and inserted into the middle a random statement from SICP after the nearest to center semicolon, comma, period, and or or:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, this takes two arguments, a symbol and a list, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

And we have seen and, evaluating this combination involves three subproblems, testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, However, if we allow mutators on list structure, sharing becomes significant, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me the machine repeatedly executes a controller loop, changing the contents of the registers, until some termination condition is satisfied, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

Verses from: Random Bible Verse [sandersweb.net] . I scrolled around the TOC with my eyes closed, clicked a link, then repeated the process waggling my mouse erratically to select sentences from SICP. [mit.edu] YMMV.

Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? (1)

narcc (412956) | about a year ago | (#45623699)

You may want to review the term "null hypothesis".

Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624711)

You may want to review the term "null hypothesis".

I think GP used the term correctly, though I don't really see his point. The idea of combining the KJ Bible and SICP was diabolically clever - the implementation was merely engineering competence, but necessary in order to have a story. So GP is claiming there were other plausible implementations of the same diabolically clever idea. So what.

Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623761)

As a scientist I always test the null hypothesis to quantify usefulness of my research. They did a bunch of work, but is it any better than a simple randomized selection of text?

As a quick test of the null hypothesis, below I have selected a random bible verse and inserted into the middle a random statement from SICP after the nearest to center semicolon, comma, period, and or or:

Not a valid comparison without an equal number of KJP verses mixed in randomly.

Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623825)

He already gave examples of the nonsense coming out of the algorithm, theres no need to repeat. Even though yours was longer.

Re:Nice, but is it better than a pseudo random? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#45625249)

I hate to break it to you, but your experimental methodology for SICP is flawed. For example, if you set your mouse sensitivity sufficiently high, your wiggling will aways result in the scroll bar being at the top or the bottom. If also your window size is sufficiently small, then you will always click the top link, or the bottom link, of the TOC. What you need to do is calibrate your sampling procedure by computing a series of quantiles, changing the sensitivity and window size until these approximate the uniform distribution. I suggest getting a grad student to work out the details while we go to lunch. There's a special on roast beef in the cafeteria today.

All praise the Omnissah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623449)

With this we are one step closer in our ability to commune with the Machine God.

this is stupid mush (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623487)

.. appealing to those who really dont get the Bible at all, and who use computers a lot.. -0

WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45623731)

What the fuck am i reading???

Popeye (1)

johnsie (1158363) | about a year ago | (#45623835)

I heard Jesus went to Mount Olive, but Popeye got pissed

Reminds me of a classic from The Daily WTF: (1)

default luser (529332) | about a year ago | (#45623901)

The Neural Network that creates prose! [thedailywtf.com]

The pig go.
Go is to the fountain.
The pig put foot. Grunt.
Foot in what? ketchup.

The dove fly.
Fly is in sky.
The dove drop something.
The something on the pig.

The pig disgusting. The pig rattle.
Rattle with dove.
The dove angry.
The pig leave.

The dove produce.
Produce is chicken wing.
With wing bark.
No Quack.

*cough* (1)

rakslice (90330) | about a year ago | (#45623925)

From the dedication of SICP:

"[...] I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. [...]"

Mark V Shaney was decades ago (1)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | about a year ago | (#45623941)

For crying out loud don't they teach kids any history these days?

See http://glenda.cat-v.org/friends/mark-v-shaney/classics [cat-v.org]

My personal favourite:

I would like to be present everywhere

Grace is the âoeupdateâ program, which simply issues a sync system call.

Iâ(TM)ve received two pieces of email that imply that somebody recently posted the entire world with a flood, to remove all rational obstacles to believing something revealed by God.

I have to pass a tuple containing the existing Unix technology. To do an outbound call you should be able to say that I believe that God wants him to set up an alternative mailbox for these files.

If this is exactly the thrust of Larry McVoyâ(TM)s paper on âoeExtent Like Performance on a sysV f. s.â, he cannot have salvation, except in the production of the forgiveness of sins.

I would like to be present everywhere.

This is supported by Jesusâ(TM)s use of low cost eight bit micros and small amounts of RAM. When you find salvation.

For the sinner deserves not life but death, according to the disk devices. For example, start with Plan 9, which is free of sin, the case is different from His perspective.

The Roman Church has always been a part of a file system semantics.

Grab the cat torture shit. Lets be real familiar with these braindead but safe solutions. We have to look further into this possible interpretation.

Another trick to see how our inability to discern justice as an actual inconsistency in FORTRAN 77 by defining DO loops to work in the hope of generating few more responses.

Female clergy are widely but not quite.

I have modified the âoestandardâ Berkley ftpd to allow for various types of failures in Scripture.

Thatâ(TM)s not very important, because the deception of one being good entails being loving, merciful, just, and many other names; one per symbolic link.

Those who believe that something could be saved except the atoning sacrifice of Isaac, on the testimony of countless scientists who also most oppose the teachings of the statements that I call UNIX.

ScienceFiction more or less predicts future pornography and homosexuality in the sovereignty of God.

Wouldnâ(TM)t that mean that the Father too may live anew dev log to ftp after login?

Probably first choice of block size on all of their salvation.

If God truly loves humankind then why does He create sinners? If human is His creation, then who is the ultimate in all shells?

I know at one point Jesus said âoeno one may come to grips with the cpio header blown awayâ.

It speaks of the original ftpd.

I am the resident Unix and open systems bigot so much like the resurrection of Jesus only.

Geoff modified relaynews to write an essay on prayer.

dvips for DVI files should run on the testimony of countless scientists who also most oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church through no fault of his posting, in which the idea that it passes the diagnostics.

And I get real turned on by a good English translation of the Bible; because there is sufficient response I would want to change the nature of the points of Catholic theology would immediately have to be God and satan who is a free variable :â")

Christian theology is not seek optimization, which the means pertain, as was said above

Good. I am trying to keep binary compatibility with the possible exception of Sun Microsystems. Yet, because Sun is apparently seen as the closest Protestant Church to Catholicism.

That observation doesnâ(TM)t get one anywhere. One might as well as the law as can be meritorious of life everlasting, but so as to heal the man page; if not, you can always use parens and braces.

On a SVR4, I am interested in building a list of names and addresses to be in the name of Martin Luther, who led the religious reformation of the HP Laserjet

â¦with a God who, Paul believes, is constantly concerned with the current FFS implementation.

Nevertheless, I vote no because I believe we CAN build robust, reliable, and secure systems with the Lord.

Mark V. Shaney

Re: Mark V Shaney was decades ago (1)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | about a year ago | (#45623955)

FFS it's bad enough that slashcode seems to be 7-bit ASCII only but it can't even do punctuation.... and they call themselves geeks/nerds what a load of old cobblers

Verily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624347)

Are the child classes inherently begotten?

Do this in Quran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624493)

and lets see how fun it will be and how brave can you be. ;)

The Javascript Kinda Ruins It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624513)

How do you get rid of that tumblr popup shit on the right?

What do you get? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45624797)

A mildly satirical result that obscures the fact that vast swathes of the populations of the world's most potentially destructive countries are still in some way massively over-influenced by books that would instantly be rejected by most mainstream publishers today as utter nonsense. Hilarious. Can't wait for "The Communist Manifesto and Developing Web 2.0 applicatons for Dummies" or "C# in 14 days which is just enough time to learn it before The Rapture and therefore prevent the old camel and eye of needle gotcha stopping you moving in an upwards direction"

this is complex? (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year ago | (#45624991)

Seriously?

Managing a few variables in some order is complex? If this is actually news, I'm cringing on how low expectations of programmers have sunk.

How many hurdles will the writer of this drek jump when managing a maiden name changing to a married name?

In my databases there's just one.

Take the time to design the back end. That way you don't need to worry about the tripe posted in the article.

Quaint (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45625131)

Of the 40 or so example spews that I looked at, they mostly appeared to consist of a beginning that started in one work, and the ending which finished in the other... like two random sentences spliced together in a way that, at least around the words that they appear to have been joined on, made some degree of gramatical sense, even if the concept itself were absurd.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?