₦airaland Forum

Did anyone attempt this?

[img]http://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/News/2015/Dec/B/gchqxmaspuzzle.jpg[/img]

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/204-challenges/9288-can-you-solve-gchqs-xmas-puzzle.html

The basic idea is that you have a 2D grid and along the rows and columns are lists of numbers that give how many runs of each length there are in the row and column. For example a row with 2, 4, 5 next to it would have three runs consisting of a run of 2, a run of 4 and a run of 5 black cells. Obviously a single row or column doesn't specify where the runs are but if you are given the information for all of the rows and columns you can see that a unique solution which satisfies all of the constraints might exist. If a unique solution doesn't exist then you can fix which one you want by providing some of the starting values.

Kgdavid:
Lool...by some time i meant a few weeks...and during these few weeks you would go out on dates and stuff...but yea dating is a woman's world, i agree.

I think that even the woman often isn't sure what is going on in her own head. I had one straight-talking female "friend", who told me that she kept doing the opposite of what she wanted, when it came to men, and she didn't know what the matter was with her.

Here is a separate case that is "open to interpretation", and it may go to show just [size=20pt]how inscrutable women can be[/size].

I used to live in a house share of five people, one of whom was a Danish girl. This was a middle class girl, doing her studies in London, and to all appearances "sweet, and even a little naive". We all basically got along, and we'd chat from time to time about anything and everything.

Now, on various occasions, this Danish girl would slip in the fact that she was so in love with her boyfriend. Sometimes it seemed relevant to what we were discussing. Sometimes it seemed unsolicited. The number of occasions just made it a teeny weeny bit odd... Then she would talk about her height (she was quite tall and blonde) and she would say something like how her height was an advantage attracting men (which may be followed by how much in love she was with the boyfriend, whom none of us ever saw). Still, it was all explicable. Her boyfriend was in Denmark, perhaps? And why shouldn't she be happy about her height?

Then, one day, she needs help proofreading her dissertation. Again, normal; her English is good, but English is my first language. She wants me to check for spelling and grammatical errors, and give a general opinion on her overall argument. Cool. She is studying sociology at postgraduate level, so I am not really qualified, but I'd do what I could. She hands me the dissertation. It is basically about SEX. Something like "male and female attitudes towards sex". She casually hands me this dissertation, her face the epitome of innocence.

Anywaaayyyz... I put on my poker face, just as if she'd it had been entitled, "effect of weather on shopping habits". It's a long dissertation, so I take it away and give it back to her a few days later. There was the odd correction, here and there, and I told her that her argument was good (like I knew, or it mattered to her what I thought )

A few days later. She offers to take me out for a meal as a thank you...

ALL of this can be totally explained as a very nice girl being friendly. Yet...

And any women reading this could be forgiven for thinking, "for god's sake man, she was just a sweet, friendly girl..."

Laburus:
What does it Mean?

A girl who want's to emphasize that you are just friends may say something like "you are like a brother". But the reverse doesn't hold. Just because she says it, doesn't mean that she wants you just to be friends.

It could simply mean "we're close".

And she may say, "you remind me of my dad" because, so far, she feels ... restricted ....

Laburus:
Dont get it twisted, "My brother" is the apex of Friendzone a point of No return. at least a Friendzone can turn to something but "My BrotherZone" Nothing for you as you are in a Zoo not Zone. #experience with Tazi

Even this one isn't true. "You are like a brother"..."you remind me of my dad"... neither means friend zone.

Kgdavid:
Sometimes you guys write as if girls are robots
these things work the way you have stated but only when "ceteris paribus holds true"....
for instance,
1. Point 1 is proabbly the only of those rules that is probably universally true. Even at that, what if she does like you and is only trying to convince herself that she doesnt?
2. This one depends on the type of girl, and on how close you have become. But yes generally, girls will prune for you if they do like you or are expecting to see you. A bigger sign in this regard should be pruning behavior... the little tell tale body language signs such as twisting her hair in your presence. these ones are things women may do without realizing them and they should be clues that she lieks you. you can do more research on this later.
3. she may just be trying to hold your attention. if you've known each other for long, though, then its more likely to be a friend zoned matter.
4. if she likes you but thinks you only see her as a friend, point 4 may not hold true. she may talk to you about guy issues merely to get your attention or even see if you get jealous.
5. if she is intimidated by you, point 5 may not hold true
6. this one may hold true more often than not
7. what if the girl likes you but has heard you're a player and she wants to protect herself? Point 7 will not hold true
8. yes this one may hold true. i remember the day one distant female friend of mine got tipsy and starting acting so weird around me and i was wondering what could have entered her mind. Now i realize alcohol kinda loosens certain inhibitions
so OP, those rules you listed make sense but remember that human beings are dynamic and girls can be strange at times. The best way to tell if a girl likes you or not, is [size=20pt]study her for some time[/size], and then make your move. If you've studied her well, you will surely be able to tell if her initial no means no, or if it means yes, but not today.
Ciao!!

Good luck with this "PhD"

The babe is probably batting her eyelashes there, while she is bringing her badass game... and you are doing "PhD".

Better be friends and keep looking. If she is interested, she will change tack.

When it comes to game, women beat men hands down.

ROSSIKE:
lol...Have you anything to say about the substance? We know you're not a fan of his style.

He is someone who is beginning to wake up, albeit in a loud and flamboyant fashion.

I am trying to picture him in moments of "quiet reflection", but the image is blurred.

ROSSIKE:
Garbage. The man is an advocate. Communication does not have to be dialectic.

This is pedagogy, not advocacy.

The irony is that he is still in religion mode.

Anyway, you have always been an "ends justifies the means" believer.

ROSSIKE:
Unfair......he's eliciting audience participation. 'Call and response' is a very effective African convention used in song and speech. Focus on the substance not the style.

Participation, but hardly dialectic.

More like catechism at its worst!

Speaker: Say "religion".

Sheeple: "religion!"



The irony.

plaetton:
Naivety.
Do we have to sit around for a few more centuries of bloodshed and warfare to roll back religious irrationality in our own lands?

If people, young people , can see that religion is not all that it's cracked up to be , then a future of bloodshed and warfare can be sidestepped.

No doubts, religion is responsible for our very low outputs in science and technology. The very things that we so much depend on in this age.
Religion puts Africans in a time warp that is rather incongruous to the challenges of the era.

You have missed the point. It took centuries of bloodshed and warfare because people back then were savage ranters.

Then some sane people started to come together and left the ranters to themselves. They built power bases that the ranters had no means of matching due to their inability to communicate, and they milked the ranters, aka riff-raff.

You are naive in thinking that ranting is going to get you anywhere. They are beginning to lose it here, in Britain, too, but a generation or two ago, they treasured what they called the stiff upper lip. They hated ranting. They saw ranters as ranging from riff-raff to subhuman (I am not joking). Now they are losing it, and their politics is starting to go down the sewers.

You keep talking about science and technology, whose seat of excellence was once the Islamic Middle East. The problem wasn't religion, it was emotion. Ranters, like animals, react to their emotions without thinking. That is why animals cannot build complex technology. Religion has sat side by side with technology for a long time. Ranting has not.

plaetton:
You still don't get it sir.
I keep reminding that this is the religious section. There are no written rules for discourse. We are not here to present academic papers and peer reviewable materials.

Can you engage boko haram or alqueda in rational discussion about their worlviews?
I bet not.
I see every Abrahamic religious person as a potential boko haram, even if it doesn't involve violent tendecies.

Where you live, the religious beliefs of your neighbor is not a burden and threat to your well being and life.
Here in Nigeria, it is.
I don't need academic papers to fight back.

I do get it. You are the same as the people you are criticizing. You have presented exactly the argument they would use, with roles switched.

However, I would be interested to find out how it is helping you.

I live where the religious beliefs of my neighbor is not a burden and threat to my well-being and life, BECAUSE after centuries of warfare and bloodshed, the penny dropped, and some people figured that "power" lay in composure.

plaetton:
Every rational person should ask what type of system that engenders this common recourse to magic and miracles to face existential problems, and who profits from it ?

This is what we rant here. It is the least that we can all do.

Ranting is not asking questions. Quite the opposite. It demonstrates an intellectual limit, and inability to be rational and ask questions.

The modern science and scientific scholarship that you praise so highly, it is not based on ranting. Strength of argument is not about ranting, swearing or how many exclamation marks you can fit into every sentence.

People rant because they are adopting a style of communication that impresses them. Their world view has been built by years of listening to ranters -- other folk who lack intellectual depth. Immediately, I know that they are not going to be posting anything with any weight.

Esiri111:
IF you don't believe in GOD. Then Disprove Cause and EFFECT.

well I have more important things to do than arguing with people who cannot defend their disbelief.

dalaman:
The universe might have a cause that is mindless. You don't know. Insisting that the cause of the universe is a singular being that has a mind remains and assumption. You have to provide irrevocable evidence for that for people like me to take your assumptions seriously.

Why do folks think that they are SO IMPORTANT?

Nobody HAS to defend or prove anything.

plaetton:
Trust me.
Come to Nigerian and see religion.
By the time you go back to UK, you will very likely rant against the irrationality of religious thought, attitudes and behaviors, especially when publicly promoted.
I guarantee it.

I know what is causing the ranting. I wouldn't get dragged down to such a level. It makes you as irrational as the thing you are arguing against.

aaronson:
you so off topic cus anybody who knows the mind of an atheist should also know an average atheist is synonymous to a prisoner of conscious in this world and not the followership in fellowship you misconcepting!!!

Why do so many atheists rant?

Anyway, I see that you have given up on logic. Have you tried rap? You sound much better at that, and I can actually see you scraping an F in it. Go for it!

Esiri111:
And also concerning your so called mental freedom. are you more mentally free than;
Isaac Newton
Boyle
Wright Brothers
Kepler
Galileo
Copernicus
just to mention a few.
These are people who shook the world with Substance and not vain philosophies.

or than the Majority of world Population That Believe In GOD.

aaronson:
They believed in that sh1t doesn't mean mark zuckerberg,bill gates,late steve jobs,oprah Winfrey,eddy Griffin,richard dawkins and I are gonna believe in that fabricated fairy tales,we atheist and believe in disbelieve!

See the irony!

Both of them have given a list of people that they FOLLOW.

That is what religion is about -- FOLLOWING.

What they believe does not stand in its own right.

Redlyn:
I agree with the OP. If that was ALL the debate there was on this forum it would be very poor.
Fortunately I dont think that is all that is on here.

There is the bias of the topics I am interested in. If it is about scripture, then I usually feel no need to involve myself. I am fairly dismissive of the whole thing, but feel no need to rant or impose my opinions. I do skim some of the threads because I think it is important to have an idea of other people's outlooks.

Of the topics I am interested in, I have seen much better arguments on other forums, sadly, non-Naija.

Redlyn:
It's important to note that its both sides that throw counter arguments like that. So it will not be accurate to make it seem like its the non-believers that are single handedly bring down the level of debate.

In my skimming of the scripture based threads, I haven't noticed the same laxness of debate. That could possibly be due to my lack of involvement. But I tend to think that the threads in general reflect a shallow knee-jerk behaviour on the part of non-believers who are ironically obsessed with scripture. It is like trying to use logic on a red zone dog. I speak as an "unbeliever", myself, and I think these so-called atheists are some of the worst possible ambassadors for "unbelief".

Redlyn:
Also pick your battle wisely. Sometimes you must check out a discussion (eg when confronted with a robot) because further discourse would be intellectually unstimulating and frankly a waste of time.

Don't make a battle of it, at all. I talk across them and then park the debate, if their contributions are worthless, except to demonstrate lack of reason and depth of thought.

johnydon22:
lolzzz... what are the xyz of evolution?

It says, "how do you explain xyz about evolution".

See how you launched into a response without understanding the point

It is asking how the theory of evolution applies in a particular example, not about the general principle of evolution. The general principle has to be tested by trying to apply it.

johnydon22:
answer should be: Go read it up, if you ever read books you wouldnt have been asking such questions!!!

So, now you are attacking your own misconception. At this point you will be ranting a cross-purposes with the OP.

johnydon22:
(Scientific books are not like the buy bull that have millions of interpretations, everybody given it their own meaning ignoring the literal meaning...Scientific books are straight and gives one explanation and means exactly what it says no different interpretations)
WE NEED A LIBRARY IN NAIRALAND... AM NOW CONSIDERING OPENING A PDF E-LIBRARY FORUM HERE ON NAIRALAND....People need more books!!!

You are off-topic, but also incorrect in the tangent on which you have gone off. Of course there is contention in science and books can give more than one interpretation of scientific evidence. Anyone who says otherwise must be fairly clueless about what science is.

If you dispute something, it is important to understand what you are disputing (unlike your own response, here). But reading and understanding a point of view should not prevent you from being critical, unless you have some sort of inferiority complex.

At the root of most religious tendency (including science) is the question of "where we came from".

For those of you who believe that some aspect of ourselves survives this world after the body dies, do you think we will remember that we came from this world?

Do some spirits go from world to world, wondering where they came from?

onetrack:
I think "cherry picking" is a more accurate way of describing part-time religious people. I much prefer them to fundamentalists.

I think that "cherry-picking" is relative to a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of a religion.

I wouldn't say, for example, that a scientist who doesn't believe in the Higgs Boson is cherry-picking. It may be the case that he or she has a different interpretation of the evidence.

Similarly, some religious folk argue that elements of the scriptures belong only to their time or are allegorical.

I do not fall for the political tactics of atheists, like Dawkins, who have popularized certain words and assumptions as a slur against religion. Ironically , their position is closer to what a religious fanatic would say.

mmsen:
I stated facts.

You have responded with conjecture about a person you do not know.

I have issues with Nigerian society but the Brits are no example - you have to find your own way, which means doing what is best for your own society and not simply imitating northern Europeans. Sadly Nigerians often fail to understand this.

It is not conjecture. Your reaction was predictable and your vibe obvious from your post. Nobody mentioned imitation, apart from you.

mmsen:
P.S.
The Chinese have pulled more people out of poverty in a 30 year period than any other society in history - surely they would make for a better reference point than an decayed empirical power.

I was a long time member of a Chinese forum, and they were far and away superior debaters to most of what i see here. Not least, they didn't get so bogged down with defending small misconceptions.

I didn't use the Chinese as an example, because much of the control of political dialogue is coercive. I find the Chinese excellent at sticking to the point, being logical in their arguments, but often not daring to venture creative ideas, related to the point.

mmsen:
You seem intent on putting words in the mouths of others.

No. It was a question. All you had to do was answer "yes" or "no".

However, I am guessing that you are Nigerian, so you took the question as rhetorical, and the whole backward and forward evasion ensued. That is why I say that Nigerians debate badly. Many of us have lost the ability to be direct.

You still haven't answered the question.

mmsen:
I did not call them atheists I called them liars.

I stick to that terminology.

This is what you said...

mmsen:
You cannot be a part time xtian/muslim/jew/buddhist. To attempt to do so is to be a liar.

I think you are "sticking to your terminology" because you are unable to answer the question of whether or not they are atheists.

mmsen:
Casually adhering to a religion is the same as being a part-time adherent - you pick and choose when you feel like following that religion.

You are playing with words. I gave an example where people pick and choose "what" to believe, not "when" to believe it. It is not time related. You are twisting the words to justify your pejorative use of "part-time" Christian. You were taking a dig instead of trying to base your argument wholly on logic.

mmsen:
What they can do relatively well in the UK (and they have a long tradition of doing so) is to sit round a table and have a discussion without making it into a fraught political and psychological game.

Hilarious.

Clearly you have never listened to Prime Ministers Questions.

The whole thing is a psychological game, usually with nothing of substance coming from it.

Enjoy your mythology.

You are responding to your sense of offence at the OP.

I hope many of us develop the humility to take a step back and face facts.

Prime Ministers Questions is a show for the public. At proper functional meetings, the British are far more disciplined than Nigerians. Sad but true. Being defensive is a disservice to your culture. There needs to be a root and branch change.

mmsen:
We aren't going to argue semantics just so you can avoid the issue.

I will substitute casual (defined as irregular or occasional) for "part time" (as if there is a difference).

My point remains - casual [religious group here] are liars.

"Casual" allows that you consistently and faithfully adhere to some of the doctrines of a faith, but not others. It need have nothing to do with time or being part-time.

There is no need to evoke any slur to make your argument. It doesn't make it more logical.

My question is, are you saying that these "liars" are therefore atheists?

You seem to be the one evading the questions.

I am not really interested in the opinions of you guys. I don't enter discussions trying to impose my opinions, so, if you have an agenda, you can take it away with you. I only discuss to observe the myriad of opinions people have.

I do, however wish to hear from someone capable of appraising the situation maturely.

I was born and brought up in the UK, but I still care about my country of origin. What they can do relatively well in the UK (and they have a long tradition of doing so) is to sit round a table and have a discussion without making it into a fraught political and psychological game. People who play games have already decided that developments are going to be based on something other than harmonious agreement and rationale. It is a downward death spiral which is notoriously difficult to pull out of. Eventually, the entire culture suffers, and it becomes impossible to be forthright and fair in your dealings, without being seen as a naive target. That is a sad state of affairs.

Reading Achebe, I noticed that Nigerians (Igbo people in that case) had a system of formal speaking and progressive dialogue. It is disappointing to see what Nigerian dialogue has become, and I have set out in the OP some of the habits that will make progress an impossibility, while they persist.

The habits almost amount to a dereliction of humanity. It really is that bad. The mode of communication has often reduced to the fight or flight instinct seen in animals, rather than considered dialogue and civilized search for common interest. I really think that our mode of communication is at the heart of Nigeria's suffering.

Each time you satisfy yourself psychologically with one of the habits mentioned in the OP, you add to the political "pollution" that is holding Nigeria back.

mmsen:
You cannot be a part time xtian/muslim/jew/buddhist. To attempt to do is to be a liar.

Let us debate genuinely. "Part-time" is a loaded and rhetorical word.

I am prepared to accept the word "casual" or "non devout".

Given that people can be, and often are, liars, is your point that Christians, Muslims and Jews who are not devout are atheists?

Rhetoric

Often takes the form of drawing extreme pseudo-logical conclusions from an opposing viewpoint, and making a further illogical inference that your own point must therefore be right.

E.g I don't think that science can explain everything.

Answer: Which peer reviewed paper on ghosts did you last read?

Answering a question with a question

Usually a form of rhetoric, where logic takes a back seat. No explanation is given as to how or why the second question is related to the original one.

E.g How much evidence is there that man and chimpanzees have a common ancestor?

Answer: Do you think some sky daddy created them?

Inventing an opposing point of view and then attacking it.

This often takes the form of pigeonholing a different viewpoint, or failing to query it before launching into an irrational rant against an assumed viewpoint.

E.g

How do you explain xyz about evolution?

Answer: So you think the Earth is 6000 years old?

Stupid psychological distractions.

Very common and immature. Attribute some false or obviously inaccurate quote to somebody and hope they get drawn away from the real discussion to deny the falsehood.

Multiple sign-on syndrome.

Create multiple accounts to like your own posts. Clearly, the culprits don't realize how obvious, stupid and sad this looks.

That basically summarizes the low standard of much of the discussion on this forum. The worst offenders appear to be the members who say that they like reason and rationality. They use the most cartoons, rhetoric, shallow arguments, misrepresentations and tactics as outlined above.

Is this sad state of affairs going to improve?

plaetton:
He he.
I forgot. We can't discuss unless we first agree.

That's correct. There needs to be some minimal agreement in any discussion, on things like the existence, or potential existence, of the things you are discussing, and the meaning of terms you are using (or you can replace the terms by descriptions, for clarity).

If you enter into a "discussion" simply to rant, post cartoons, cliches, etc., I say that it is better to agree to disagree. It is more civilized.

Try not to "forget" again.

plaetton:
There is no distinction between being religious and being too religious.
It is the nature of the religion, the philosophical framework of a particular religion that matters.

If you can see no distinction then we obviously are not in a position to discuss. And you are of course at liberty to keep to what matters to you.

Meanwhile, you are not everyone.

mmsen:
I agree with much of what you said but to say that there is nothing wrong with being religious is erroneous in light of your initial premise.

You cannot suggest that religion is a source of backwardness then recommend that some religion is good.

He has said that too much religion is no good. That does not imply that any amount of religion is bad.

Philosopher1979:
WE NEED TO CONCIEVE OF OUR GOD AS AN INTELLECTUAL GOD OR THINKER

Do you mean to imply that Africans should recognize a personal god, i.e a god that has attributes of a person -- can communicate in human language, reasons, loves, gets angry etc?

davien:
You don't seem to understand anything here.. you awoke a dead topic just because you where ticked it addressed creationism differently..and now you're accusing me of not expressing my points convincingly,if that were true then you wouldn't need to comment in the first place now would you?

Dude, the discussion ended when you said there is no such thing as an "atheist outlook".

This is an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

I enjoyed your childish and amateurish use of psychology to try to extend the discussion, but all good things have to come to an end.