[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Yigal,
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> I think people should be actual be able to agree on what mutually
>>> contradictory concepts are. For example, we can agree on what your
>>> concept of god is and also agree on what my concept of god is. That
>>> is not to say that we should agree that bot are valid, but only what
>>> each would entail and /that they exist/.
>>>
>> let's hypothetically debate "apples" for a second. how is your
>> sentence above applies? we now have two different concepts of an
>> apple; let's say thatyou define a concept of a blue apple
>> while I define a concept of a green apple. according to you we
>> don't have to agree that both concepts of apples are valid (the
>> definitions are contradictory) but you also say that we should
>> agree on what that concept would entail [so far, I'm with you
>> on this] I can think of what would it mean to have blue apples.
>> but than you add we should also agree that they exist.
> 
> strictly, yes, but not in they way you intended (I may have been unclear
> on that bit). I said that we should agree that they, the concepts,
> exist. The reality of green apples don't actual need to exist for the
> concept (the idea) to exist. And that is /all/ I clamed
> 
OK, that is what I hoped to read. <g>

>> one last example - Americans define temperature in terms of Fahrenheit
>> while the rest of the world uses Celsius. I agree that the other
>> American /definition/ exists but my world view is based on my
>> definition of Celsius. I know that below 20 degrees I start to feel
>> cold, I know that when I'm healthy my body would measure 36.6-37
>> degrees. I know that above 40 degrees of body heat I can die. etc.. if
>> the other definition would be defined differently or not at all, this
>> would not affect me since I /think/ in Celsius. in the same way, my
>> world view is not affected by your definition of god since your
>> definition simply does not apply to me.
>>
> 
> That is not aplicable because the two scales are exactly corilated and
> are in fact redundent. The only way people will act differnt based on
> that difference in world view is the number they say.
>> Also the links in the bottom of the wikipedia article are very
>> interesting. But I'm sure you will probably read them anyway if you
>> haven't already since it seems it interests you as much as it
>> interests me.

that was just an example meant to illustrate that you don't have to use
a concept even if it is defined elsewhere.
in the same way I can compare the Jewish, Christian and Islamic concepts
of god and claim that they are redundant. there are differences of
course like the word used and other more more subtle differences, but
they are not foreign concepts and rather borrow from each other's
definitions.
> 
> If I sat down a wikipidia and looked as 10% of the stuff that interested
> me, I'd die of old age before I ran out. Yes, it's interesting, but no I
> don't have time to read it. :(
> 
> 
> A side note: where did you learn your English? (as a first language,
> grade school, etc.) It is very good, but seems to be used ever so
> slightly differently than I use it.
> 
Thanks :) I learned here in Israel. English is taught as a required
second language in Israel since we are a small country and that allows
us to communicate with other nations.
I doubt any foreigner that wants to do business here will learn Hebrew,
therefore Knowing English is a required skill.
the slight difference is probably due to different cultural thought
patterns (I think in Hebrew...), maybe I'm yet another prove to the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis <G>

--Yigal