Job Market for Lisp and Haskell programmers, serious question.

xahlee@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>
>>"xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>>
>>
>>>If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>>
>>Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
>>"fairly above average".
>
>
> So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?

You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
and existential.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_..._intelligences

kt

Kenny wrote:

> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
> bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
> and existential.
> --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

They missed sexual intelligence.

I'm a classist. I'm not interested in this motherfucking post-
modernist fuckface's views. When it comes to intelligence, there is
just one, what these motherfuckers would call logical-mathematical.
When you broaden it to other areas, intelligence as a concept ceases
to be meaningful.

For example, there's SETI (Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Now, are
we assuming that aliens don't have musical intelligence? intraprsonal
intelligence? Naturalistic intelligence? and these mothefucker's
existential intelligence?

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > On Aug 15, 4:55 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> >> Really? What's your IQ, then? I'm curious what number corresponds to
> >> "fairly above average".
>
> > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> I've been making no claims about my IQ.
>
> You're the one who seemed to have no problem discussing your own IQ.
> So I was curious what the number was. After all, you brought it up.

LOL, Don, how ugly a exit strategy. May i suggest not be
confrontational on stage then?

> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
> is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
> average, surely not more than that.

Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have,
with a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you
published yours and mean it, i'll post mine.

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

xahlee@gmail.com wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
>
>
>>>So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>>
>>You will need an a-list: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
>>bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
>>and existential.
>> --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
>
>
> They missed sexual intelligence.

Probably just good manners.

>
> I'm a classist. I'm not interested in this motherfucking post-
> modernist fuckface's views.
> When it comes to intelligence, there is
> just one, what these motherfuckers would call logical-mathematical.

That does not make you a classicist, that makes you a
reactionaryhighscoringonlogicalmathematicalsoletsr estrictintelligencetothatist.

But your interpersonal is soaring, you oughta let that one in, too.

Meanwhile, I have to google some more, have no clue what naturalistic
and existential intelligence would be....

Ah, existential: "Existential intelligence can be defined as the ability
to be sensitive to, or have the capacity for, conceptualizing or
tackling deeper or larger questions about human existence, such as the
meaning of life, why are we born, why do we die, what is consciousness,
or how did we get here."

OK, where can I sign up for Xah's Reactionary IQ Army? That is not
intelligence, that is howbuddhistareyou?ence.

Naturalist IQ: ".. people possessing enhanced levels of [naturalist]
intelligence may also be very interested in other species, or in the
environment and the earth. "

Oh my. It may be too late to stop Them.

kt

Scott Burson <FSet.SLB@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
> On Aug 16, 8:41 am, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>> As for me: I will admit this: my IQ, as measured by clinical professionals,
>> is within a few standard deviations of normal. At most 4-5 deviations from
>> average, surely not more than that.
>
> Boy, that's humble!
> Even 4 standard deviations out makes you about 1 in 30,000; for 5,
> it's about 1 in 3 million. So yes, "surely not more than that"

Oh, but I was just putting bounds. Note my wording: I'm "within" those
bounds, "at most", "surely not more", etc. Merely somewhere (anywhere!)
inside that range.

Also, I note that you automatically assumed I was bragging. I was also
careful not to state that my IQ was even above average. The bounds are
symmetric on either side of the peak. Perhaps you should have pity for me!

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@geddis.org
When you want to accomplish something, there are different stages that you go
through. The first is to imagine yourself doing whatever it is. The second is
to light up a big cigar, because mister, she's as good as done.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]

"xahlee@gmail.com" <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
>> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> and mean it, i'll post mine.

Again, I'm not the one making any claims.

I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
completely crumble.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@geddis.org
Scott: You know, if you don't yell you're more likely to get what you want.
Boss: I want to yell.
Scott: I see. That is a flaw in the plan.
-- Basic Instructions, "How to Be Diplomatic", 5/4/2008

On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> >> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> completely crumble.

LOL.

Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.

My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
«If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»

The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
status inquiry. You want to dig the Xah's IQ part.

LOL. Don, I LOL.

It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
Tim, others, and now you.

I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:

H A P P Y

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Aug 17, 1:20Â*am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > >> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> > >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you published yours
> > > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> > Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> > I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts, but
> > when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> > completely crumble.
>
> LOL.
>
> Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
>
> My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
> «If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
> for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
> bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
> in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
>
> The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
> status inquiry. You want to dig the Xah's IQ part.
>
> LOL. Don, I LOL.
>
> It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
> head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
> their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
> Tim, others, and now you.
>
> I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
> Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
>
> Â*H Â* Â*A Â* Â*P Â* Â*P Â* Â*Y
>
> Â* Xah
> ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> ☄

Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
Emacs scripting,
nobody here is impressed yet. Most of your posts show that you have a
confused understanding of Lisp. comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
favorite
newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level. If somebody
shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
run away and can't find the post.

I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you. All I saw is
some basic code how to script Emacs. All I see is long
text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
you we have seen mostly zero.

Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you
are
writing so much about?

On Aug 16, 4:40 pm, "jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...@corporate-
world.lisp.de> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 1:20 am, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 3:03 pm, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:
>
> > > "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 16 Aug 2008:
>
> > > >> >> "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 15 Aug 2008:
> > > >> >> > If you have fairly above average IQ like me
>
> > > > Publish it. Post it here. Post whatever certificates or test you have, with
> > > > a scan of the cert or test, date etc. When i see that you publishedyours
> > > > and mean it, i'll post mine.
>
> > > Again, I'm not the one making any claims.
>
> > > I just note that, as usual, you make strong assertions in your posts,but
> > > when challenged to back up your statements with actual evidence, you
> > > completely crumble.
>
> > LOL.
>
> > Crumble my ass. It appears you, who completely crumbled.
>
> > My statement that IQ that lead to your challenge was:
> > «If you have fairly above average IQ like me, then, my general advice
> > for long-term career choices is that pursue what you like and the
> > bosses will compete their heads off to employ you. While you are still
> > in a shoehorning stage, you can meanwhile mop McDonald's toilets.»
>
> > The remark was made in the context of making fun about lisp jobs
> > status inquiry. You want to dig theXah'sIQ part.
>
> > LOL. Don, I LOL.
>
> > It appears to me, anytime some Lisper want to challenge me head to
> > head, then i follow up with explict terms, they put their tail between
> > their ass and run off all politely. This happened to Rainer, Geuner,
> > Tim, others, and now you.
>
> > I LOLz. Comp.lang.lisp makes me happy. As Roger Rabbit said in Who
> > Framed Roger Rabbit as he makes a silhouette of a window:
>
> > H A P P Y
>
> > Xah
> > ∑http://xahlee.org/
>
> > ☄
>

> Well, given that you seem to be unable to learn much Lisp beyond basic
> Emacs scripting,

Huh? Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
you are stupid and wrong? What can you do?

That seems to be my situation here in comp.lang.lisp, repeatedly. I
can again, start to write elaborately, cite url to past threads,
describe the situation, etc. But it's no use.

> nobody here is impressed yet.

You think?

> Most of your posts show that you have a
> confused understanding of Lisp.

Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
right?


> comp.lang.lisp seems to be your
> favorite
> newsgroup now, but you are on a beginner level.

Yeah, keep saying that doesn't make you right. You know at least that
right?

> If somebody
> shows you some basic Lisp code (like I showed you how to easily
> implement your Mathematica function with a better interface) you
> run away and can't find the post.

Huh? And i gave you explanation on how you are just incorrect and just
very silly.

The thread is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....519b32b4ef5d5/

You know, in science there's a priciple of falsifiable. That is, if a
claim is made, one important aspect of science with regards to claims
is whether it is falsifiable.

So, in our debates or argument, whatever the topic, it is often
possible, to make the claim, argument, or subject, in such as way,
that can clearly show which party is wrong. I have tried to suggest
this here and there. But you morons, simply ignores it. Then, just
kept claiming that how i was wrong.

I don't think i need to tress or repeat again, that i think you guys,
although knows lisp technical details, but as far as the general
argument here, especial on any argument against me, are completely
idiotic.

And again, this can be phrased into into a reasonable way so we can
all see who's all just hot air. Again, i tried to do this many times,
with end result that you morons simply become quite, or start to went
off completely off topic drivel, or whatnot.

As far as newsgroup goes, perhaps it is doomed to be stupid drivels
when it comes to issues or argument that has some element of opinion.
What can i do?

> I haven't seen any significant amount of Lisp code (remember, this
> is comp.lang.lisp) in all the years from you.

LOL. I didn't claim to have write many lisp code. What's your problem?

I have claimed, for example, that i know functional programing more
than you morons, and i have claimed and claim now, the fundamental
problems lisp as shown in my essay here:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w..._problems.html

We can, itemize the essay, make it into precise statements, and we can
argue in detail. The statements can be made so that each is verifiable
and falsifiable, and most of us would agree that it is a reasonable
rephrasing from my essay. Then, we can argue in detail about which. Do
you want to do that??

And also, perhaps you might consider the whole essay is rather ill
conceived by some wrong perspective, or perhaps there are more
important or practical perpective, etc. But you have to give detail
ok? You can't just say your opponent is wrong and think that you won a
argument, ok?

I mean, before i thought most morons in newsgroup just tried to fuck
around. I made this suggestion particular about you in some thread
maybe 6 months back. I made it explicit, a suggestion that we can each
put money in paypal, as some way to make sure at least we are sincere.
But if i recall, you more or less chicken out with some friendly
words.

Let me be more positive on this... since we don't have nothing to do.
Let me suggest, you pick some particular claim i made that you think
i'm stupid or wrong. Then, we can go on, with above guidelines perhaps
about precision of statement, verifiability, fasifiability, and any
other things about argument that make it a better one. Then, we can
argue in detail. So, in the end, we can see who's more right.

I'm not actually sure i want to do this since i'm quite tired and my
REPEATED tries to be reasonable are often met with fucking morons or
no response, here in this year, as well as the large, hundred+ threads
in gnu.emacs.help this month. (go ahead, you can read it in
group.google.com or nicely summarized and linked here bottom:
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/chat_style_posts.html
)

> All I saw is
> some basic code how to script Emacs.

Don't be a moron. What's scripting emacs has to do with what??

Well, i haven't see you post a single line of Mathematica. LOL.
All i see you do is posting Common Lisp scripts.

Is creditial you are after now?? hum?

I mean, i wrote some 500 or 1000 words on this to you in some thread
about maybe 6 months ago. You forgot it all? huuh?

What is your exact argument? What you trying to say??

Let me help you... are you trying to say, that because since i don't
have Common Lisp experience, and haven't written a lot emacs lisp,
therefore my lisp language criticism is wrong or incorrect?

Is that what you are trying to say? C'mon, no problem. If it is, it's
a valid statement. We can start to argue about that.

> All I see is long
> text with often little information for this newsgroup. It's
> not that everybody needs to be a good programmer, but from
> you we have seen mostly zero.

See above.

> Maybe it is about time to actually learn the programming language you arewriting so much about?

I think, perhaps it is time, for you to open your eyes, and see that
the world doesn't revolve around Common Lisp.

I don't think this will ever happen. As i have explicitly said in one
of the criticisms on your posts, that whever other lang is mentioned
in a argument in a relevant way, you always as far as i've seen,
completely ignore it, then bury your head into Common Lisp.

I tried to not waste my time and type as fast as i can in this reply
because from my past experiences repsonding you to in any argument
that is negative on CL is fruitless.

Rainer, suppose you have a argument in a bar, then you reasonably
proved that you are right. But the monkeys simply kept on about how
you are stupid and wrong? What can i do?

What to do with the monkeys, seriously? I say 1+1 is 2, they say no.
Then i show them logic, then say logic is not all. Then i show
history, social context, but then they say it's all made up. I mention
science, they say science can be wrong. I mention philosophy about
epismitology, they say argument is not philosophy. I mention about 2
stones placed together makes it 2. They say that's obvious but 1+1 is
still not 2. I mention how abstraction is used, but they say stones
are not abstraction. Rainer, what to do with the monkeys? This happens
repeatedly here. Should i now take 10 min to find the exact url in
groups.google.com about these threads? hum? should i should i should
i? Is it worth that effort? worth it worth it worth it?

I mentioned, explicitly, in one of my post to you, that we could hire
arbitors for our argument. For example, we can hire renowned computer
scientists to judge their valuation of my criticism of lisp. The
hiring we can share, or prhaps someone knows someone can we can get
him in here. We can make sure, that the arbitor is fair, and his
result will be published say in some reputable publication. The
arbitor will be ones we both agree as qualified. Right? I suggested
this line of thought in the past, remember? But Rainer, what to do
with the monkeys?

Monkeys! Really fucking stupid monkeys. Stupid, fucking stupid,
moronic, sloppy, idiotic, dumb, lackluster, brainless. Very ignorant
about almost all subject except some technical details of CL.
Extremely stupid....

ok, this is what you get for fast typing. Try to respond, and i'll
respond appropriately. I don't fear of typing fast now. For the moment
i take a break of elaborate construction and composition. Folks,
respond! show me the degree of your moronicity, and i'll show you in
detail how it is so. (gratis!)

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Aug 16, 3:41*pm, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
> > > So, if i disclose my IQ, you disclose yours?
>
> > You will need an a-list: *linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial,
> > bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic,
> > and existential.
> > * * --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
>
> They missed sexual intelligence.

Hey, I keep making the wrong choice for girlfriends. Am I a complete
sexual moron?
OTOH, the Dick always wins the Brains out in some tough dilemma. This
gotta mean something...

> I'm a classist. I'm not interested in this motherfucking post-
> modernist fuckface's views. When it comes to intelligence, there is
> just one, what these motherfuckers would call logical-mathematical.

I'd have to agree with that. BTW, the best music is always inherently
produced by logical-math minds...