Month: February 2014


Nem vagyok én egy agresszív ember, és szerintem életemben egyszer nem fordult még elő, hogy valakit bántani akartam volna. Mostanáig.

A háttértörténet: a diplomámhoz kellett még három tárgy, ezeket fel is vettem rendben, le is vizsgáztam. Kettő – úgy érzem – elég lazán meglett, de az egyik elég húzós. Tekintve hogy már eldőlt az egyetem utáni állásom (aminek előfeltétele a diploma), annyira nem lenne buli, ha most meghúznának, úgyhogy az elmúlt pár napban elég durva volt a stressz. A legrosszabb, hogy a vizsgaeredményeket március 5-ig, amikor az évzáró értekezlet van, nem közlik. Hivatalosan, legalábbis.

ESO (beta) second impressions

After the rage-inducing installation of the ESO beta finished, I was more than skeptical as I dove into the world of Tamriel. Luckily the gameplay itself wasn’t as insane as the installation, but it sure took a good time to get used to. So I can say that my first second impressions were mixed, but definitely still better than my experience with WoW was.

ESO (beta) first impressions

Horrible. I didn’t even get to play the game yet, and I can already say that much.

I’ve been staring at the installer’s screen for no less than five hours now – I’m positive that in this time I could torrent Windows 8.1, burn it on a bluray or DVD, completely format my entire hard drive and finish installing Windows. Seriously, if you can’t provide a normal bandwidth for downloads (and this 4 gigabyte thing here at the 70% mark, which is about the third download in the process by the way, is downloading at a mighty 200 kB/s), then just outsource it. Include a limited-functionality torrent client in the installer and make the users download from each other. It’s not such great magic – it’s been done before (sadly, googling “torrent based installer” doesn’t return any relevant results so I can’t provide any actual examples, but I remember such).

On definitions

During my winter break I had the same argument twice, about definitions. People said that definitions can be disproved, and I said that that doesn’t make sense, since definitions have no truth value.

What do you call a definition (haha, define “definition”)? To put it simply, it’s giving something a name. The thing is described, and a name is assigned to that description. So a definition has no truth value, it’s just a naming. It can’t be true or false, it can only be different from other definitions (whether of the same term or the same thing is irrelevant).

On the soul

I don’t think there’s any mainstream religion out there that doesn’t assume the existence of a soul, nor that there is anyone out there who would need the explanation of what is meant by it. Still, I’d say that the soul is nothing but a fancy name for consciousness. And that definitely doesn’t have to be something breathed into us by some higher spiritual existence. Even less does it have to be something unique to humans, however painful that is to certain people to hear. Remember that only a few hundred years ago (and I daresay deep within even today), “civilized people” still refused to consider others humans just because the color of their skin.

A nuke

I had a really interesting dream this morning. I’ll only describe one part of it that I clearly remember.

A button was pressed, and a nuke was launched from a space station at New York City. My point of view stuck with the bomb, so “I” zoomed across the atmosphere, and then above the NYC harbor, the warhead went boom. First I saw a tiny fireball, then the next thing I knew was that the shockwave pushed me not only under the water, but I could see the seabed get torn up around me as the blast evaporated everything. Then my viewpoint started riding the waves across the city, and I could see buildings getting blown apart around me…

It was quite the experience.

That ugly catch 22

There’s a reason that arguments about religion often turn into completely meaningless battles of empty words. Such arguments in general are based on standard logic and follow the scientific method of drawing conclusions based on a set of axioms and trying to find inconsistencies.

The big problem of a scientist trying to argue with a strictly religious Christian, for example, on an equal footing is that their sets of axioms are different. Sure, they are same for the most of it – one could maybe even say that the scientific axioms are a subset of the Christian ones. That is because the first and foremost axiom of a strict Christian is the absoluteness of God.

On religion

I don’t think that following a religion is a bad thing, that it should be reprimanded, nor do I claim that there are no higher spiritual beings. Religion is a very important pillar of culture and civilization, a fundamental part of mankind’s history. It provides an explanation for things there used to be no clear explanation for before, and while I don’t think that this function of it is as relevant in this age and day when science is capable of explaining phenomenon without involving divine beings (and please note that William of Ockham, the man who’s famous for stating that all theories should be kept as simple as possible, was a Christian monk), I also think that religion can and does provide moral guidelines and a spiritual respite, something that science can not and is not supposed to do.



On Genesis and creation

I’ll put it short: it’s a creation myth. It’s a creation myth, and as such it is in no ways more of a valid explanation of the world’s creation than any other creation myths. I really like reading creation myths: it’s fascinating to see what stories people can come up with to explain things they can’t explain from experience.