When you look at the code in context, tun is set by a function call, then you get to the initialization of the local sk variable, and after that it attempts to check the value of tun.
Kludge a lot of state machines together and you can simulate stack machines to a certain limit.
Kludge a lot of context free grammars together and you can simulate a context-sensitive grammar within certain limits. But it takes infinite stack, or, rather, infinite memory to actually build a context-sensitive grammar out of a bunch of context-free grammar implementations.
Intelligence is at least at the level one step beyond -- unrestricted grammar.
(Yeah, I'm saying we seem to have infinite tape and infinite stack, even though mortality is a little hard to see beyond.)
Woops. Posted this below in the wrong sub-thread. Oh, well, post it here, too, with this mea culpa.
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.
Or not. If Microsoft goes down, the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs.
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.
Or not. If Microsoft goes down, the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs.
Some people believe that, in true religion, enlightenment is the realization of a rational basis to existence.
That is, half of enlightenment is the realization of the rational basis, and the other half is the realization that mortality pushes that rational basis ultimately beyond (mortal) human reach.
There seems to be some division as to whether giving up on understanding is preferred, since mortality is an absolute limit.
And there seems to be some further division as to whether mortality is really an absolute limit.
(And I see a metaphor here in the infinite tape of a Turing machine.)
Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans. It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals. Or, it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals.
Reentrancy, and methods of managing complexity -- make a large state machine with a large grammar, or make a bunch of small state machines with small grammars?
Of course, C does allow you to code like a CoBOL programer.
The reverse is not true.
I don't drink, but I'll see if I can't get lost in the implications of applying this to gender concepts while I go take care of some shopping for my wife.
Those coding standards are equivalent to having management do a full optimization pass on the pseudo-code and completely unrolling every call that goes more than one level deep.
FWIW, there have been a lot of attempts to modernize CoBOL, new coding environments, objects, etc.
I don't have enough experience with what they're doing (don't want to have that experience, I guess.) to know what they've done about reentrancy, but I suspect that the whole concept of reentrancy is foreign to the very people who like the grammar and syntax of CoBOL.
Yeah, I know it's an over-simplification, but do remember that your virtualization is one of the tools CoBOL programers use to get around its non-reentrant nature.
You not only have to know the application field pretty well (or have the bent to intuit it), but you will have to get used to living without local variables and to a one-call-deep call stack.
Don't ignore the naming conventions. It's what they do to work around the lack of re-entrance.
And never, never, never try anything fancy. If you can't keep the state machine in your head, trying to debug it interactively will eat your lunch and your breakfast, dinner, and midnight snacks, as well.
Nobody really knows 10+ languages. Some people have a good ability to guess which library functions to call in a certain specific context.
It's kind of like being able to "Hello, where's the facilities?" and read carburetor manuals in ten different languages. You know the field, and you learn enough to do a little handshake conversation with the people.
And, in this case, it's like knowing how to get around in your niche in ten Latin family languages and talking about learning enough, say, Japanese, to go there and try to work as an engineering manager on products for the Japanese market.
Although that example might not hit home if you're the kind of guy who thinks knowing the word "kiai" makes you both a jiujutsu master and a Japanese master.
I have seen C written like good CoBOL. You will not see CoBOL written like good C.
So, let me see if I understand what you're saying.
One, you are asserting that pornography is not a crime. I don't see any good argument to support that assertion, but you do seem to assert it.
Two, you are asserting that pornography, as a thing, can be separated from things that often happen during the production or consumption of pornography which are crimes, therefore pornography is not a crime. I don't see you presenting a good argument that all the crimes you have declared separable are all the crimes concurrent with pornography, or a good argument that any others which may be concurrent must also be separable.
Three, you cannot be induced to think about the consequences concurrent to pornography except by means of examples of which you personally are aware, therefore, the fact that there are crimes which may be concurrent with pornography is, to you, irrelevant.
Four, anything which I say which invokes an emotional response in you is an example of me using emotional, rather than rational, argument, and that makes me an emotional, irrational hypocrite, and therefore anything I say is irrelevant to you.
Is that last one because it offends you to hear such arguments, as if I were raping you, or is it because I said it is not my intent to move you?
I don't intend to move you. If you move, you will move yourself. If you will not move yourself, well, you will not move, even though it would be to your benefit to move.
There are no victimless crimes.
The examples were given as counter-examples to the proposition of victimless crime.
Just because you can't trust that any of the examples that have been given here are real doesn't mean that we don't know that they are real. The fact that you don't know the examples are real doesn't mean that you should claim that they are not real.
If you claim that you cannot believe there are any real examples of victims in the crimes of pornography, I'll tell you you are lying to me and to yourself. Either that, or you really do need to get out of your mom's basement.
Now, there are things which have been called crimes which shouldn't have been called crimes.
There are also crimes in which the victims think they want to be hurt, offended, ill-used, or abused. Generally, some time later, they realize they really didn't, after all.
There are minor offenses or even major crimes that we put up with because stopping them would come at too great a price. In some cases, putting up with them now helps us make a better world later. In other cases, we find out later that we should have stopped them anyway.
To some degree, we do, as a society, have to put up with a certain level of pornography, even if we don't mess with it ourselves. I'm not sure all the films in question here are beyond that line, but I'll trust the judge. It sounds like they may well have been.
Or not. Sometimes, the availability of a certain kind of pornography lets us, as a society, talk about certain abuses that occur in private relationships that the law may well need to deal with. If so, rather than getting freaked out that freedom of speech is not absolute, we should be talking about whether laws can be made to deal with the question of whether someone who consumes human waste as part of the sex act with another person should be generally considered to have been abused by the other person, or by the movie producer who directed it.
Or, we might talk about whether these films promote such acts or promote trying to talk other people into such acts. Perhaps, the judges' opinions notwithstanding, these films are more likely to help people see that they should not do such things, and that they should not induce others to do such things.
Are you saying that you don't believe these things happen to real people, or are you saying that, because I gave only general details, you aren't moved by them?
If the former, how far removed from reality are you?
If the latter, let me ask you again, do you have no sympathy for people who, whether through no fault of their own, or perhaps through some minor indiscretion on their part, get caught in the middle of some greedy people's plans to make lots of many in a way that is neither moral nor ethical, but not against some letter of some law, or perhaps (as in this case) somehow defended under some extreme interpretation of extreme concepts of freedom in some artificial world that ought to allow them?
No, even if the latter, how far removed from reality are you?
If you think that all porn is produced squeaky-clean like the brochure from the company tells you, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, too.
Of course, they have to claim to be squeaky clean. Of course they have to produce model cases as evidence. And then there's all the rest that they have to sweep under the rug.
Don't kid yourself. If Hollywood can't operate clean, there are definitely makers of porn cutting ethical corners, too. No question about that.
If you think the current obscenity laws is what government regulation is all about, go read your state's regulations. All 12 or 16 or 30 thick volumes of it. In the same library, they're likely to have a copy of the federal regulations, so take a browse through those volumes, as well.
Oh, wait. You seem at least a little familiar with what the government has done relative to food labeling, etc.
Do you really want that kind of detailed regulation about what can go in a work of art or literature?
-------------------- If the theme is A, acts P and Q are allowed, but not R, S, T, or U. But if the ostensible moral of the plot is C, P is disallowed and R is allowed, but only from the waist up, and only if it involves exactly one male and one female, unless the advertisements declare that it is published expressly for homosexuals, in which case it must be two males, neither of which may be males of color (to avoid racial slur, you see). --------------------
That's what is going to happen if the producers of porn don't exercise a little self-restraint.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of porn, but I do recognize the necessity of free speech. You and people like you seem to be all hung up on getting one "freedom" that will create a backlash that will let the government get its claws in all speech. It's the backlash that I'm worried about here.
Slashdot Mirror
When you look at the code in context, tun is set by a function call, then you get to the initialization of the local sk variable, and after that it attempts to check the value of tun.
So, yeah, the test is too late.
Kludge a lot of state machines together and you can simulate stack machines to a certain limit.
Kludge a lot of context free grammars together and you can simulate a context-sensitive grammar within certain limits. But it takes infinite stack, or, rather, infinite memory to actually build a context-sensitive grammar out of a bunch of context-free grammar implementations.
Intelligence is at least at the level one step beyond -- unrestricted grammar.
(Yeah, I'm saying we seem to have infinite tape and infinite stack, even though mortality is a little hard to see beyond.)
Meant that in response to this.
Woops. Posted this below in the wrong sub-thread. Oh, well, post it here, too, with this mea culpa.
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.
Or not. If Microsoft goes down, the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs.
Not until we have infinite tape and infinite time to process the tape are our computers truly Turing complete.
Moore boasted that technology would always be giving us just enough more tape. I'm not so sure we should worship technology, but so far the tech has stayed a little ahead of the average need.
Anyway, this new tech may provide a way to extend the curve just a little bit further, keep our machines effectively Turing complete for the average user for another decade or so.
Or not. If Microsoft goes down, the average user may soon realize he has been seriously duped about computational needs.
Some people believe that, in true religion, enlightenment is the realization of a rational basis to existence.
That is, half of enlightenment is the realization of the rational basis, and the other half is the realization that mortality pushes that rational basis ultimately beyond (mortal) human reach.
There seems to be some division as to whether giving up on understanding is preferred, since mortality is an absolute limit.
And there seems to be some further division as to whether mortality is really an absolute limit.
(And I see a metaphor here in the infinite tape of a Turing machine.)
Adam and Eve.
Or, if you don't get the reference, us.
Humans have been doing this as far back as there have been humans. It is one of the things which sets us apart from the other animals. Or, it might be argued that this is just another way of looking at the only thing that separates us from the other animals.
Effectively Turing complete within a certain range of speeds and requirements for state memory.
But the tape is finite.
So, yes, glorified calculating machines. (The boundary between is not as clearly defined as you assert.)
Your point is reentrancy.
Reentrancy, and methods of managing complexity -- make a large state machine with a large grammar, or make a bunch of small state machines with small grammars?
Of course, C does allow you to code like a CoBOL programer.
The reverse is not true.
I don't drink, but I'll see if I can't get lost in the implications of applying this to gender concepts while I go take care of some shopping for my wife.
Sounds great.
Except you must realize that you are essentially talking about decompiling a language that is already in many ways at assembly language level.
Standard CoBOL is not reentrant.
Those coding standards are equivalent to having management do a full optimization pass on the pseudo-code and completely unrolling every call that goes more than one level deep.
Are you sure CoBOL is no worse than C?
Or are you comparing apple fritters and ham sandwiches?
I have seen C written the way people write good CoBOL.
I have never seen CoBOL written like good C, and I know why.
Has something to do with something called reentrancy.
FWIW, there have been a lot of attempts to modernize CoBOL, new coding environments, objects, etc.
I don't have enough experience with what they're doing (don't want to have that experience, I guess.) to know what they've done about reentrancy, but I suspect that the whole concept of reentrancy is foreign to the very people who like the grammar and syntax of CoBOL.
heh.
Good analogy.
Yeah, I know it's an over-simplification, but do remember that your virtualization is one of the tools CoBOL programers use to get around its non-reentrant nature.
How many banks are running on Google's systems?
You not only have to know the application field pretty well (or have the bent to intuit it), but you will have to get used to living without local variables and to a one-call-deep call stack.
Don't ignore the naming conventions. It's what they do to work around the lack of re-entrance.
And never, never, never try anything fancy. If you can't keep the state machine in your head, trying to debug it interactively will eat your lunch and your breakfast, dinner, and midnight snacks, as well.
Nobody really knows 10+ languages. Some people have a good ability to guess which library functions to call in a certain specific context.
It's kind of like being able to "Hello, where's the facilities?" and read carburetor manuals in ten different languages. You know the field, and you learn enough to do a little handshake conversation with the people.
And, in this case, it's like knowing how to get around in your niche in ten Latin family languages and talking about learning enough, say, Japanese, to go there and try to work as an engineering manager on products for the Japanese market.
Although that example might not hit home if you're the kind of guy who thinks knowing the word "kiai" makes you both a jiujutsu master and a Japanese master.
I have seen C written like good CoBOL. You will not see CoBOL written like good C.
Odd by today's standards.
No flow-of-control stack. No local variables.
No mention of Power PC? What am I going to do with all my old Macs? 8-o
(And no mention of Coldfire, either. :-/)
Yeah, but only if they hired me to be the chief architect. ;-/
So, let me see if I understand what you're saying.
One, you are asserting that pornography is not a crime. I don't see any good argument to support that assertion, but you do seem to assert it.
Two, you are asserting that pornography, as a thing, can be separated from things that often happen during the production or consumption of pornography which are crimes, therefore pornography is not a crime. I don't see you presenting a good argument that all the crimes you have declared separable are all the crimes concurrent with pornography, or a good argument that any others which may be concurrent must also be separable.
Three, you cannot be induced to think about the consequences concurrent to pornography except by means of examples of which you personally are aware, therefore, the fact that there are crimes which may be concurrent with pornography is, to you, irrelevant.
Four, anything which I say which invokes an emotional response in you is an example of me using emotional, rather than rational, argument, and that makes me an emotional, irrational hypocrite, and therefore anything I say is irrelevant to you.
Is that last one because it offends you to hear such arguments, as if I were raping you, or is it because I said it is not my intent to move you?
I don't intend to move you. If you move, you will move yourself. If you will not move yourself, well, you will not move, even though it would be to your benefit to move.
There are no victimless crimes.
The examples were given as counter-examples to the proposition of victimless crime.
Just because you can't trust that any of the examples that have been given here are real doesn't mean that we don't know that they are real. The fact that you don't know the examples are real doesn't mean that you should claim that they are not real.
If you claim that you cannot believe there are any real examples of victims in the crimes of pornography, I'll tell you you are lying to me and to yourself. Either that, or you really do need to get out of your mom's basement.
Now, there are things which have been called crimes which shouldn't have been called crimes.
There are also crimes in which the victims think they want to be hurt, offended, ill-used, or abused. Generally, some time later, they realize they really didn't, after all.
There are minor offenses or even major crimes that we put up with because stopping them would come at too great a price. In some cases, putting up with them now helps us make a better world later. In other cases, we find out later that we should have stopped them anyway.
To some degree, we do, as a society, have to put up with a certain level of pornography, even if we don't mess with it ourselves. I'm not sure all the films in question here are beyond that line, but I'll trust the judge. It sounds like they may well have been.
Or not. Sometimes, the availability of a certain kind of pornography lets us, as a society, talk about certain abuses that occur in private relationships that the law may well need to deal with. If so, rather than getting freaked out that freedom of speech is not absolute, we should be talking about whether laws can be made to deal with the question of whether someone who consumes human waste as part of the sex act with another person should be generally considered to have been abused by the other person, or by the movie producer who directed it.
Or, we might talk about whether these films promote such acts or promote trying to talk other people into such acts. Perhaps, the judges' opinions notwithstanding, these films are more likely to help people see that they should not do such things, and that they should not induce others to do such things.
Have you seen that kind of conversation here?
I haven't.
Wow. You surprise me.
Are you saying that you don't believe these things happen to real people, or are you saying that, because I gave only general details, you aren't moved by them?
If the former, how far removed from reality are you?
If the latter, let me ask you again, do you have no sympathy for people who, whether through no fault of their own, or perhaps through some minor indiscretion on their part, get caught in the middle of some greedy people's plans to make lots of many in a way that is neither moral nor ethical, but not against some letter of some law, or perhaps (as in this case) somehow defended under some extreme interpretation of extreme concepts of freedom in some artificial world that ought to allow them?
No, even if the latter, how far removed from reality are you?
If you think that all porn is produced squeaky-clean like the brochure from the company tells you, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, too.
Of course, they have to claim to be squeaky clean. Of course they have to produce model cases as evidence. And then there's all the rest that they have to sweep under the rug.
Don't kid yourself. If Hollywood can't operate clean, there are definitely makers of porn cutting ethical corners, too. No question about that.
If you think the current obscenity laws is what government regulation is all about, go read your state's regulations. All 12 or 16 or 30 thick volumes of it. In the same library, they're likely to have a copy of the federal regulations, so take a browse through those volumes, as well.
Oh, wait. You seem at least a little familiar with what the government has done relative to food labeling, etc.
Do you really want that kind of detailed regulation about what can go in a work of art or literature?
--------------------
If the theme is A, acts P and Q are allowed, but not R, S, T, or U. But if the ostensible moral of the plot is C, P is disallowed and R is allowed, but only from the waist up, and only if it involves exactly one male and one female, unless the advertisements declare that it is published expressly for homosexuals, in which case it must be two males, neither of which may be males of color (to avoid racial slur, you see).
--------------------
That's what is going to happen if the producers of porn don't exercise a little self-restraint.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of porn, but I do recognize the necessity of free speech. You and people like you seem to be all hung up on getting one "freedom" that will create a backlash that will let the government get its claws in all speech. It's the backlash that I'm worried about here.