so far itaniums are only for (pretty big) servers, not exactly the market apple is in. if intel were anywhere near having itaniums for desktops and mobile units, they would have announced it
Scheme source code is text that needs to be parsed, just like C or Pascal or Python or whatever. Lisp source code is structured objects.
i would argue that that is just a difference in how the language specs are written up. if you have a closer look at the BNF, you will notice that it is a textual representation of s-expressions, so the parser should be pretty much identical to the lisp reader (ok, scheme doesn't have read tables and reader macros)
E.g., the behaviour of 'quote' is different because of that.
are you sure? i haven't noticed any differences yet
could you please enlighten us about your definition of binary tree? i have never heard this claim before, though quite a few people claim (also incorrectly) that in lisp everything is a list. apparently the up to 30 to 40 years old news that lisp has arrays, strings, symbols, numbers, hashtables, structures, objects, etc hasn't made it to them yet
It does not distinguish between code and data,
try to execute the data (1 2 3 4 5) or (this is dat) and you will notice that it find out that it very well makes this distinction. what is true that the source encoding uses an easy to use data structure, which has the advantage that all the power of lisp is available for manipulating source code, resulting in a macro system that hardly any other language can match
thus it is easy to write self-modifying code.
please demonstrate how to do that. you can assign new values to variable, and since functions are regular objects, you can replace a function definition by a new definition. but since modern lisp system compile code to machine language or byte code, you can modify the source representation as much as you like without effecting your code until you recompile the altered definition. this is a far cry from what is usually understood under "self modifying code"
What does 'contents of decrement address decrement register' mean? Nothing, thats what it means. It doesn't even refer to the way that the old LISP machine hardware worked.
Its a false mnemonic.
the mnemonics describe the implementation of cons cells (the basic elements from which lists are constructed, but which also can be used for other purposes). they actually are the IBM 704 assembler instructions to access the componenets of cons cells. Most (all?) lisp implementations provide other mnemonics tailored for the particular datastructures, but Lisp has a tradition of backwards compatibility, so the car and cdr mnmonics were kept in
Besides which, just look at modern functional languages; its obvious that the excessive parenthisation in LISP is totally uneccesary.
the original spec of lisp (the lisp1.5 manual) used both the current syntax and a more algol like syntax, but the first implementation was done in the parenthesized syntax. as one of the texts on the history of lisp explains, the suitability of the s-expression syntax for mcro processing was discovered quite early and convinced practically all lisp users not to bother with a more traditional surface syntax, even though there were a few attempts (one of the first i remember was something called Lisp2 done at Stanford in the early to mid 1960s. it looke very much like algol.
They just couldn't write a parser for shit so they took the old adage "If in doubt, bracket" far too seriously and made it compulsory.
Although, as I was going through that I thought "Was Gore really in politics as far back as the late 1960s"?
he was. if you have access to old copies of the Communications of the ACM (mid 1970s), check out their column "Report from Washington". Gore is mentioned frequently as one of the few politicians who showed both interest in and understanding of technology (iirc, he was representative at the time), and he was explicitly mentioned as pushing the idea of the "information highway", which eventually resulted in turning arpanet into the internet.
not being american, i didn't know too much about US politics then, but these articles were the first thing that came to mind when he got known during the presidential campaigns in the runup to the 1992 election
Looking back on CP/M, MS-DOS and DR-DOS all we can really say is "thank God we can use real operating systems like UNIX, Linux and even Windows NT/XP".
too bad you weren't around at that time. the world of personal computing would have been so much better
what you apparently are unaware of is that CP/M, QDOS, and MS-DOS/DR-DOS were written for for the 8080/Z80 (CP/M) and the 8086, both machines that had no concept of system protection and whose performance was anemic. under those circumstances CP/M and DOS were the best you can hope for, and CP/M established a platform for which applications could be written that were not customized for some particular hardware (as long as it used 8080/Z80 processors). DOS did the same for the 8086
not that i liked either of them. i held back buying my first PC until they were able to support decent OSes
But you deliberately choose an inflammatory word that has loads of negative connotations.
well, it wasn't me who introduced that word into the discussion
If you truly cannot tell the difference (both in scale and severity)
what i gave was a pretty precise functional description of these camps
then their really is no need for any further dialog
agreed. you are too brainwashed by your government's propaganda to see the similarities.
believe me, the nazis, commies, and brits (who supposedly invented these camps, definitely used them during the boer wars) also came up with very convincing arguments that the camps were for the benefit of mankind and that the inmates didn't deserve any better. and all the time there were idiots like you who actually believed it
funny, but i thougt when earthquakes were invented, the oil industry didn't perform these tests yet. do you really think that plate tectonics stopped and let the oil industry toke over earth quake production?
the santorin explosion (aegean a couple of centuries BC) affected a smaller area, but wiped out at least one (minoan) civilization
some catastrophy 200 - 300 million years ago (apparently also involving a tsunami) wiped out about 80% of all species. granted, mankind wasn't around then, but who knows how we would have been effected when all these species had been around
the onus is on the governments of the indian ocean for not setting up a system for these warnings to be effective
first, the indian ocean doesn't have any governments. there are a couple of governments in countries bordering on it and on some islands in it.
more important, why should they have done so? tsunamis are an extremely rare event there (the last one i lnow of was in 1883). the tsunami warning system in the pacific has been set up because they occur there relatively frequently. and i haven't heard anything about your US government setting up somehing similar for the east coast (probably together with other governments to cover the atlantic), simply because it is about as infrequent there as in the indian ocean (last tsunami killed 60000 in 1755)
My point was that you're insisting on lumping all Americans together inside one monolithic worldview.
seems to be common human behavior. i have heard enough (not all) americans insist that "all french are surrender monkeys" and that from now on they would eat freedom fries
this doesn't change the fact that these camps are used to hold people against their will and without any legal basis, just like oyther concentration camps
Reduce birth rates and increase the amount of money that can be spent on a per capita basis on warning systems
there aaare no warning systems in this area because it's a very rare event. tsunamis are relatvelt frequent in the pacific and hardly ever occur anywhere else. does the US have a tsunami warning system at the atlantic coast? a tsunami killed 60000 people in lisbon in 1755
that's not what i read (spiegel, a german news magazine): apparently the usgs tried to issue a warning, but found that there was no procedure in place and nobody to contact
too bad you weren't right in the path of the tsunami. it would have considerably improved the IQ of both the world and your country. you might want to check out the predominant religions in the hardest hit countries
more likely the moronic exhaust from your head is reponsible (unless, of courde, you can demonstrate that global warming has anything to do with earthquaake caused tsunamis)
Where were you and where was your country when the Taliban were shooting women in the head on just the accusation of adultry, and Saddam Husein was killing hundreds of thousands just for sport?
most likely he was not there supporting saddam as the americans did when he was attacking iran and gassing kurds at the same time
just have a look at te map: the epicenter was nortwest of the tip of sumatra (in the gukf of bengalia), so the tsunami would just hit that tip, otherwise run mostly parallel to the coast, so woulkdn't effect sumatra too much. the other indonesian islands would be shirlded by the malay pensinsula. sri lanke, india, bangla dash, thailand, malaysia, and probably myanmar (burma) coastlines, otoh, would get the full brunt of it.
given that the quake was a rare event ( my ass is more rare there have been 5 of that in the last 100 years)
sure, but have a look where they occurred: all in the pacific. the indian ocean isn't exactly well known for this kind of event. afaik, the last big tsunami there was in 1883 (krakatoa)
blizzards are also widely known, but i doubt you would think of setting up a blizzard warning system in southern arizona or southern florida
I note that you don't actually explain your position on what makes copyright immoral.
i'm not him, but let's take a stab at it:
1. copyright in itself is not immoral, but
2. recent changes to it, e.g. extending it every time the disney corporation comes close to lose its monopoly over its cash cow and changing it so that traditional fair use rights become illegal bring the current version pretty close to being so
3. the basic form of copyright law was established when producing pirate copies was a capital and labour intensive process. this isn't true anymore, but instead of modifying it to take changed technical realities into account, the changes are trying to preserve the assumption that held when copyright was originally established
4. combined with the practises of the big copyright holders, the public (i.e. the individual user) has the choice between being ripped off and ripping off the copyright holder and the actual creator (if the copyright holder leaves him anything). i would consider reducing the individual user to this sorry choice immoral
Slashdot Mirror
so far itaniums are only for (pretty big) servers, not exactly the market apple is in. if intel were anywhere near having itaniums for desktops and mobile units, they would have announced it
Intel inside ;-)
i would argue that that is just a difference in how the language specs are written up. if you have a closer look at the BNF, you will notice that it is a textual representation of s-expressions, so the parser should be pretty much identical to the lisp reader (ok, scheme doesn't have read tables and reader macros)
E.g., the behaviour of 'quote' is different because of that.
are you sure? i haven't noticed any differences yet
Lisp implements everything as a binary tree.
could you please enlighten us about your definition of binary tree? i have never heard this claim before, though quite a few people claim (also incorrectly) that in lisp everything is a list. apparently the up to 30 to 40 years old news that lisp has arrays, strings, symbols, numbers, hashtables, structures, objects, etc hasn't made it to them yet
It does not distinguish between code and data,
try to execute the data (1 2 3 4 5) or (this is dat) and you will notice that it find out that it very well makes this distinction. what is true that the source encoding uses an easy to use data structure, which has the advantage that all the power of lisp is available for manipulating source code, resulting in a macro system that hardly any other language can match
thus it is easy to write self-modifying code.
please demonstrate how to do that. you can assign new values to variable, and since functions are regular objects, you can replace a function definition by a new definition. but since modern lisp system compile code to machine language or byte code, you can modify the source representation as much as you like without effecting your code until you recompile the altered definition. this is a far cry from what is usually understood under "self modifying code"
the mnemonics describe the implementation of cons cells (the basic elements from which lists are constructed, but which also can be used for other purposes). they actually are the IBM 704 assembler instructions to access the componenets of cons cells. Most (all?) lisp implementations provide other mnemonics tailored for the particular datastructures, but Lisp has a tradition of backwards compatibility, so the car and cdr mnmonics were kept in
Besides which, just look at modern functional languages; its obvious that the excessive parenthisation in LISP is totally uneccesary.
the original spec of lisp (the lisp1.5 manual) used both the current syntax and a more algol like syntax, but the first implementation was done in the parenthesized syntax. as one of the texts on the history of lisp explains, the suitability of the s-expression syntax for mcro processing was discovered quite early and convinced practically all lisp users not to bother with a more traditional surface syntax, even though there were a few attempts (one of the first i remember was something called Lisp2 done at Stanford in the early to mid 1960s. it looke very much like algol.
They just couldn't write a parser for shit so they took the old adage "If in doubt, bracket" far too seriously and made it compulsory.
bull.
he was. if you have access to old copies of the Communications of the ACM (mid 1970s), check out their column "Report from Washington". Gore is mentioned frequently as one of the few politicians who showed both interest in and understanding of technology (iirc, he was representative at the time), and he was explicitly mentioned as pushing the idea of the "information highway", which eventually resulted in turning arpanet into the internet.
not being american, i didn't know too much about US politics then, but these articles were the first thing that came to mind when he got known during the presidential campaigns in the runup to the 1992 election
too bad you weren't around at that time. the world of personal computing would have been so much better
what you apparently are unaware of is that CP/M, QDOS, and MS-DOS/DR-DOS were written for for the 8080/Z80 (CP/M) and the 8086, both machines that had no concept of system protection and whose performance was anemic. under those circumstances CP/M and DOS were the best you can hope for, and CP/M established a platform for which applications could be written that were not customized for some particular hardware (as long as it used 8080/Z80 processors). DOS did the same for the 8086
not that i liked either of them. i held back buying my first PC until they were able to support decent OSes
then why did they wave the request when they noticed that he had their loyalty card?
well, it wasn't me who introduced that word into the discussion
If you truly cannot tell the difference (both in scale and severity)
what i gave was a pretty precise functional description of these camps
then their really is no need for any further dialog
agreed. you are too brainwashed by your government's propaganda to see the similarities.
believe me, the nazis, commies, and brits (who supposedly invented these camps, definitely used them during the boer wars) also came up with very convincing arguments that the camps were for the benefit of mankind and that the inmates didn't deserve any better. and all the time there were idiots like you who actually believed it
funny, but i thougt when earthquakes were invented, the oil industry didn't perform these tests yet. do you really think that plate tectonics stopped and let the oil industry toke over earth quake production?
damn, i'm going to lose some sleep over this
the santorin explosion (aegean a couple of centuries BC) affected a smaller area, but wiped out at least one (minoan) civilization
some catastrophy 200 - 300 million years ago (apparently also involving a tsunami) wiped out about 80% of all species. granted, mankind wasn't around then, but who knows how we would have been effected when all these species had been around
same with the dinosaurs (65 million years ago)
first, the indian ocean doesn't have any governments. there are a couple of governments in countries bordering on it and on some islands in it.
more important, why should they have done so? tsunamis are an extremely rare event there (the last one i lnow of was in 1883). the tsunami warning system in the pacific has been set up because they occur there relatively frequently. and i haven't heard anything about your US government setting up somehing similar for the east coast (probably together with other governments to cover the atlantic), simply because it is about as infrequent there as in the indian ocean (last tsunami killed 60000 in 1755)
seems to be common human behavior. i have heard enough (not all) americans insist that "all french are surrender monkeys" and that from now on they would eat freedom fries
this doesn't change the fact that these camps are used to hold people against their will and without any legal basis, just like oyther concentration camps
there aaare no warning systems in this area because it's a very rare event. tsunamis are relatvelt frequent in the pacific and hardly ever occur anywhere else. does the US have a tsunami warning system at the atlantic coast? a tsunami killed 60000 people in lisbon in 1755
that's not what i read (spiegel, a german news magazine): apparently the usgs tried to issue a warning, but found that there was no procedure in place and nobody to contact
too bad you weren't right in the path of the tsunami. it would have considerably improved the IQ of both the world and your country. you might want to check out the predominant religions in the hardest hit countries
more likely the moronic exhaust from your head is reponsible (unless, of courde, you can demonstrate that global warming has anything to do with earthquaake caused tsunamis)
most likely he was not there supporting saddam as the americans did when he was attacking iran and gassing kurds at the same time
since when does thailand have a northern coast?
just have a look at te map: the epicenter was nortwest of the tip of sumatra (in the gukf of bengalia), so the tsunami would just hit that tip, otherwise run mostly parallel to the coast, so woulkdn't effect sumatra too much. the other indonesian islands would be shirlded by the malay pensinsula. sri lanke, india, bangla dash, thailand, malaysia, and probably myanmar (burma) coastlines, otoh, would get the full brunt of it.
sure, but have a look where they occurred: all in the pacific. the indian ocean isn't exactly well known for this kind of event. afaik, the last big tsunami there was in 1883 (krakatoa)
blizzards are also widely known, but i doubt you would think of setting up a blizzard warning system in southern arizona or southern florida
i'm not him, but let's take a stab at it:
1. copyright in itself is not immoral, but
2. recent changes to it, e.g. extending it every time the disney corporation comes close to lose its monopoly over its cash cow and changing it so that traditional fair use rights become illegal bring the current version pretty close to being so
3. the basic form of copyright law was established when producing pirate copies was a capital and labour intensive process. this isn't true anymore, but instead of modifying it to take changed technical realities into account, the changes are trying to preserve the assumption that held when copyright was originally established
4. combined with the practises of the big copyright holders, the public (i.e. the individual user) has the choice between being ripped off and ripping off the copyright holder and the actual creator (if the copyright holder leaves him anything). i would consider reducing the individual user to this sorry choice immoral
no. in some places they use risc technology, but the x86 architecture is too fucked up to yurm it into risc