Thursday, August 27, 2009

Chalk up another one for the American Resistence

Someone once asked me what I thought was the definition of awesome. I believe I have found it in a speech by an American marine:



You just have to stand up and applaud when someone like this enters a room.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Why computer programmers don’t exist: a look at atheist reasoning

If one studies a computer program carefully, one sees that programs are merely made up of less complex parts, which in turn are made up of even less complex parts, etc.

A program, or “Application”, is nothing more than a collection of objects or “classes” that each perform a specialised role, ergo it “applies” its pre-defined capabilities.

the objects that the program consists of are in turn nothing more than a collection of properties and procedure, or “methods”, that perform certain tasks or stores and retrieves information.

Each property is made up of what is referred to as “primitive” types that are nothing more than pre-defined collections of memory address blocks and its functioning and available actions are pre-determined by hard and fast rules set out by the operating system or application framework. A method is nothing but an application and manipulation of theses “primitives” according to these set rules.

each primitive is expressed as a hexadecimal number which is nothing more than a shorthand notation of binary digits, ie 1’s and 0’s.

If we examine the oldest types of programs, called “procedural” programs, we notice that they consist of the same types of “primitives”, but lack the methods and properties we see in today’s programs. As we move forward in time, we see the appearance of subroutines, or “reusable” procedures, that formed the basis of what we today call “functions”. there is therefore a clear progression from these simple procedural programs to the object-oriented systems we have today. There is also strong evidence in the form of polymorphic viruses that suggest that a program can change its signature, or “footprint”, over time and without any intelligent interference, to match its environment’s demands more closely.

It is therefore quite idiotic to suggest that just because programs seem “smart” to us, they must have been created by some sort of “programmer”, because if we delve a bit deeper, programs are just a collection of 1’s and 0’s, or even more fundamentally just the absence or presence of an electric charge.

Monday, August 3, 2009