... but if the very foundation of key parts of 3D patents is undermined through prior art.... i dunno...
Formulas can't be patented, so it's unlikely that this video could provide any prior art for dismantling patents. Probably about all this video and the GPU patents share in common is the formulas involve.
Then you're an idiot. The trap was the use of "begging the question" to mean "raising the question", NONE OF THE REST OF THE POST WAS A RHETORICAL TRAP.
I've never disputed that I understood what you intended to say, merely that what you intended to say is wrong.
And I never said that what I said wasn't wrong, and immediately added "of course one needs flow-control" and then you when off on circuits, when I wasn't even talking about circuits. I was talking about operators.
Turing Completeness is only defined for languages, your attempts to claim that the bits other than a logic operator are irrelevant simply show that you do not understand the concepts as well as you think that you do.
Let me ask you something. When I draw a circuit diagram on the back of napkin... what limits the capabilities of that circuit? The speed of light? Nope... the circuit is just a theoretical construct that is unbounded by physical law. The bus sizes? If I draw the notation with buses represented as single lines, then no, because this is just a theoretical construct that is unbounded by physical law, and I can represent a bus of arbitrary width, and then assign that arbitrary width the value of infinity. Lack of infinite memory? Hm... no, again, I have an infinite-bit-width bus going into a memory array, I can simply assign that memory array to have an infinite address space.
Is any of this actually implementable in the real world? No. But then no universal Turing Machine is implementable in the real world. At all. Ever.
But if we start demanding that circuits cannot be extended arbitrarily, then there is some arbitrary limit that you're placing on that circuit, and what happens when the next brand new technology comes out that increases that limit? Congratulations, your language was limited to 16-bit values, and then extended to 32-bit values, and now to 64-bit values, because the circuitry underlying it has extended and extended.
In the same way that programs are simply theoretical constructs, so are circuits... until EITHER of them are "realized", or "implemented", and then they become finite state machines, because the universe does not allow us to construct infinite-state machines... EVER, whether it be a program, or a circuit.
You seem to be so locked up in this world of "hardware is hardware, but software is way cooler!" That you cannot seem to recognize that hardware works with theoretical constructions as well, and they're not inherently limited to physical law any more than you are.
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorder In Gene Roddenberry contract if any of the technology in star trek gets invented they can use the name free of charge. Is it that now he is gone they will ignore that part of there original contract?
This isn't about the name, that would be a trademark issue, and CBS couldn't avail themselves of the DMCA. CBS is claiming a copyright on the design of LCARS, which this app uses.
Being that I'm not an actual lawyer, and just read in law, I can't say for sure if this is a valid copyright, but then I know enough to say that this probably ought be argued in a court... (the more you read in law, the more you want to actually litigate matters in general... I suppose it makes for good business for lawyers?)
If I appear confused, it's because you're using terminology extremely confusingly, and inconsistently.
Nearly every program ever written has been executed on circuitry. So, I am at a loss as to how you can disassociate the term "circuit" from "circuitry". We have plenty of circuitry that implements a finite-limited Turing-equivalent machine. If you want to draw the line and say, "that's exactly what I'm objecting about" there is the problem that we can conceive of infinite circuitry, even though we could never build it. So, if your argument is simply "a circuit is lesser because it is finite", and that's the only difference between it and a program, then really, it's a bad definition, because programs have to have a finite number of instructions in order to operate. "No they don't, they could be infinite", yeah, well so can circuits, and both are equally tractable matters.
And I never stated that operators were not a fundamental description. In fact, my comment that SPARC C compilers have to produce a loop of instructions in order to produce an divide operator was intended to show that what is "fundamental" at one level, is actually composite in a deeper level. But to that specific layer of abstraction, "operator" is fundamental. But this is done in the same way as Chemistry dealing with the atom. In Chemistry, the fundamental component of an element is the atom, (or nucleus/electrons separately) because all matters of Chemistry operate as if atoms were fundamental particles, even though we know and understand through Physics that it is not.
As circuits require a static finite set of connections it is far from "trivial" to extend circuits to simulate Turing Machines.
Yet nearly every computer processor has been designed to do this... how? Feedback loops.
So like, what the hell, is there anything about circuits that bar them from implementing Turing machines except that they are finite? And regardless of your answer about what the hell "circuits" are, why cannot I not, for a programming language, define the concept of "nand" apart from any physical implementation and use it as an operator?
And then I didn't ever use "trivial" to say that making an infinite circuit is easy. When I used the word "trivial", I used it in the mathematical sense (you know, that stuff you have to take in order to understand computers properly.) As in "Find the non-trivial factors of 3948569384"... because the "trivial factor" is 1. (Duh.) So equally in this case, I was saying that circuits can implement a Turing-machine, except that (duh) they can't be infinite in physical implementations.
It doesn't offend me in the slightest when people make mistakes in my field, and I even take the time to correct them. You seem to think that your point was commonly understood, when sadly it is in fact a commonly misunderstood point, as your replies demonstrate.
Except you fell into my nasty rhetorical trap. The statement "begs the question" means specifically a logical fallacy where one asserts as true the conclusion in the process of a proof or argument. Yet, you seem to have readily understood it to mean: "raises the question". Which raises the question: did you not understand what I intended to say when I said "nand is Turing-complete"? Because it sure seems like you understood what I was intending to say...
FPGAs are great and all, but how much work do you need special-driven hardware for? I mean, if you're using a custom chip, then an FPGA makes sense, but anything you want to do in FPGA "hard"ware could be done with software as well...
3) implement an FPGA based one time pad data encryption system to transmit recon data to the nearby recon team.
I'm not sure if you're just not sure why a one-time pad encryption method is absolutely secure, and you're just throwing out buzzwords to sound like you'e providing security, or if you're thinking of a highly convoluted process that can be accomplished much more simply.
Realistically, you need a true random pad to be generated and sent to both receiver and transmitter, and then once the pad is used, it need be "burned" (or otherwise reliably destroyed). As the pad needs to be generated prior to sending out the UAV, the whole transmitter could honestly be accomplished with a simple Z80, and a large store of RAM... there's no reason to complicate things by throwing an FPGA into the mix... if you intended the FPGA system to generate the pad on the fly, then that isn't a one-time pad... either the pad would end up being deterministic, and thus not be truly random (which I grant you, could still make the decryption intractable, but it wouldn't make it unbreakable, which is the whole purpose of a one-time pad... we have intractable encryption routines already, and they're well tested.), or it would need to additionally communicate the random pad to the receiver, which requires a secure transmission channel, and at that point, why not just transmit your communications through that channel instead?
Operators are the fundamental definition of gates, so many methods of composing operators will only produce circuits
Funny, the gcc compiler for SPARC produces a loop (rolled or unrolled) for "a * b"... but that would seem to contradict your assertion that operators are the fundamental definition of gates... But then, even on the x86 the DIV opcode works as a circuit-based loop, rather than just simply a gate. But then as well, if circuits can loop themselves, then they could implement a Turing Machine, and then your whole argument that "circuits aren't Turing Machines" kind of fails... (except for the trivial "it's not infinite" case... after all, let us presume such a circuit with infinite precision, and infinite memory... voila, a true Turing-Equivalent Machine.)
Odd that you would write compilers, and write papers about them without being aware of these glaring counterexamples to your argument... but then no one has ever asserted that just because someone works in a field, that they must then be a genius at it.
The standard test of TC is the ability to write a TM simulation within the language. This requires sufficiently strong logic operations (such as nand), some form of flow control and some form of storage.
The requirement of "storage" completely slipped my mind, I suppose in the same way that I don't usually consider "words" to be a requirement for human speech. Getting anything done without storage at all is almost impossible, not to mention, storage usually is introduced to a language before even flow control, as it is typically easier to implement.
But then, I do suppose there are number of "calculator languages" that are not Turing complete, as they don't have storage... but then they also usually lack flow control as well, so lacking "storage" is typically the least of their problems... not to mention that I would conjecture that given sufficient amounts of flow control, I could fake variable storage with program state... (we are talking about an infinite Turing Machine here after all...)
But even confusing an operator that is complete over the set of all operators with a language that can simulate any other language is too large a nit for my tastes.
Which I suppose begs the question, do you get upset at all commonly abused, yet nevertheless well understood statements? Or just ones that pertain to your particular field of work?
It might seem like a petty distinction, but it is quite important: anything built out of nand gates is a circuit, never a program. Thus nand gates cannot describe a language, only a circuit that implements something that processes the language. The difference only becomes visible when you look at large (ie Turing Complete) languages as they are too large (infinite) to be implemented on a finite size circuit, although we use approximations of them all the time. Only on slashdot would you be nitpicked for conflating the two:)
I find it telling that you're so eager to nitpick, that you entirely miss the point that I am speaking about the abstract concept of the logical relationship "A nand B", and not circuitry... because--you know--a language can exist without circuitry... you know, by building it off of theoretical concepts describing relationships... which we in the compiler business term "operators".
When I spoke of "nand is Turing Complete" it was shorthand for "nand is sufficient for operator completeness w.r.t. Turing Completeness". As Turing Completeness is composed of two parts: operators and flow-control. So, your claim that such elements "have little in common with one another", is like claiming that a banana peel has little in common with a banana. In fact, one is simply properly a subset of the other.
"But I was talking about circuits, and a universal set of circuits is different from Turing Completeness". Why yes, indeed it is, but you're forgetting again: I wasn't talking about circuits. I was talking about these concepts which we classify as "operators". You're the one who seems to be misinterpreting my statements in order to draw circuits into the matter... I can wonder why, but the only reason I can particularly come up with is: you're not used to the concept of "nand" as being anything other than a circuit.
Only on slashdot would someone entirely miss the abstract concept of "nand" for the concrete example of circuitry, and proceed to nitpick that misinterpretation beyond the actual content of my post...
This is recommended reading for anyone interested in programming.
I willingly admit that my summary isn't doing it justice. However, I could not remember the details, nor did I have enough information to find the proper essay and refresh myself on the details. Thus, I stuck to details that I was sure of, and quite vague about what I was not sure of. Thus, a vague description with enough specifics that 10 people can bang the link over my head.;)
Yes. And you call that readable ?!? Infix, postfix and prefix languages are all equivalent (well, for 2 arguments only in the case of infix). Some are easier on the brain, that is all.
The entire point of my post was that one particular form isn't actually universally easier on the brain... it is predominantly about what one has experience with as to what is easier on any individual's brain.
This entire rant falls so far away from reality that it doesn't surprise me that you're posting this as an anonymous coward. Willing to speak your bullshit, but unwilling to have such speech associated with your own name, because you understand how offensive it is. Perhaps though, you're just ignorant to how offensive it is to truth.
The youth of Germany well understand how Nazism was bad, and in recent elections, when a Nazi-apologist sought election signs and protests against Nazism, and satirical comedy depicting the well known Nazi symbols with humor.
This "statist government" out to destroy human rights as you claim, oddly has as Article I of their constitution their Bill of Rights. They restrict speech that could lead to Nazi-like fanaticism and another horrible repression of human rights, and destruction of human dignity. This idea that they're openly hostile to conservatives is also crazy, since the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union) is the major party and currently controls the Chancellory. Yes, their conservative party is currently in charge, and running things.
"But the CDU/CSU isn't conservative enough, the more conservative individuals are being repressed!" Well, yes, the reactionaries in Germany do experience suppression of their speech... because shock the Nazis were/are reactionaries! And before you start complaining that they're treating reactionaries wrongly, they also suppress radical positions as well. Any extremist is likely to meet with opposition in Germany, because they of all people have seen the horrors that an extremist government can wrought upon the world.
16 years? And people bitch about Parrot and Perl 6....
I've tried to look at Parrot to implement my own scripting language in it... every time I've set down to get it done, it's ended up being easier said than done...
2. Non-problems: Developers often get excited by "problems" that don't exist outside of their niche or mind, and then develope something to solve it. While this might work in the niche, it rarely works in the general case (thoguh there are a few notable exceptions).
To be fair, I prefer the academic world, where niche problems are the soup de jour, and no one particularly complains. We work on the weird stuff, because that's what we like and want to work on. Forget you and your "getting work done" mentality... I'm here to play around;)
Scheme and other lisp-like languages really are given a bad rap in some cases. I remember reading about someone working on a webpage offering various services (like slashdot, or facebook, etc), and while their competitors all went with C++ (yeah, they did a lot of that back in the day) or something else a little clunky. Meanwhile, this webpage chose to do everything in Scheme, or other lisp-like language (LLL?) and as a result any time their competitors rolled out a new feature, they could whip up comparable behavior in a few hours. Thus demonstrating the utility of a rabid (should be rapid, but I almost like the typo) prototyping language for webpage development over C++, PHP, or Perl.
What I don't understand—admittedly, as a non-programmer—is why they don't just say "From now on, Emacs Lisp is the GNU extension language." Or, alternatively, that Guile continues to be the GNU extension language, but that as of Emacs 26 (or whatever version), Emacs Lisp will conform to the Guile specification.
Having both just seems like splitting resources to no good end to me.
It is all part of our (the vim users) evil plans to continue to subvert and destroy emacs. Enjoy your differently-abled extensible languages suckers!
(plus 7 (minus 4 5) (some-function ( * my-var 3))) is more difficult to read for the same reason that typing in all caps without spaces is more difficult to read: we don't have a lot of practice at it.
That said, my go-to one-liner evaluation language is a lisp-like language without parentheses*, and while I'm getting pretty good at typing out expressions in a prefix notation, the line "/ + * 3 + * 5 2 * 4 4 + * 5 2 * 4 3 + * 6 3 5..." still isn't easier to really read than the equivalent infix version of: "(3 * (5 * 2 + 4 * 4) + (5 * 2 + 4 * 3)) / (6 * 3 + 5)"
*: How can a lisp-like language work without parentheses? It's a context-sensitive language that assumes a default number of arguments to functions, which can either be extended by using "," or truncated/terminated by using "."
I can't find any relevant case law that overrides your understanding of the text. However I should note, the intent of the wiretapping laws was to protect communications, and as such, a picture containing static that I send to someone else isn't particularly "communication", and thus is outside of the scope of the purpose of the law. That being said, interception of a fax is an interception of an image that also conveys communication, and therefore would fall into the scope of the purpose of the law.
Considering the later hypothetical, I don't know how well this argument would fly in court, but any lawyer who doesn't at least attempt to argue it ("It's not communication and was thus outside of the purpose of the law") is not a good lawyer.
But I will agree, it's highly likely that any judge would rule that images transmitted through the internet would qualify as wiretapping. Of course, this also assumes that the communication was interstate (an erotic webcam chat between g/f and b/f? Almost certainly interstate, if they were in the same state, they would more likely just get together). If the communication was intrastate, then the Federal laws don't even matter, and the individual state involved is the relevant matter. (As with anything in law, the more you poke at it, the more exceptions end up falling out.)
Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.
I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.
Wiretapping only applies to communication, it does not apply to pictures. A landlord putting a secret camera in your apartment is a violation of your expectations of privacy, and not a wiretapping issue.
Slashdot Mirror
And apparently TFA doesn't even mention this at all... now I look like a total idiot...
... but if the very foundation of key parts of 3D patents is undermined through prior art.... i dunno...
Formulas can't be patented, so it's unlikely that this video could provide any prior art for dismantling patents. Probably about all this video and the GPU patents share in common is the formulas involve.
Didn't the wireframe animation appear in a monitor in a scene in "Westworld"?
Indeed, the TFA mentions this very fact.
I don't see any trap
Then you're an idiot. The trap was the use of "begging the question" to mean "raising the question", NONE OF THE REST OF THE POST WAS A RHETORICAL TRAP.
I've never disputed that I understood what you intended to say, merely that what you intended to say is wrong.
And I never said that what I said wasn't wrong, and immediately added "of course one needs flow-control" and then you when off on circuits, when I wasn't even talking about circuits. I was talking about operators.
Turing Completeness is only defined for languages, your attempts to claim that the bits other than a logic operator are irrelevant simply show that you do not understand the concepts as well as you think that you do.
Let me ask you something. When I draw a circuit diagram on the back of napkin... what limits the capabilities of that circuit? The speed of light? Nope... the circuit is just a theoretical construct that is unbounded by physical law. The bus sizes? If I draw the notation with buses represented as single lines, then no, because this is just a theoretical construct that is unbounded by physical law, and I can represent a bus of arbitrary width, and then assign that arbitrary width the value of infinity. Lack of infinite memory? Hm... no, again, I have an infinite-bit-width bus going into a memory array, I can simply assign that memory array to have an infinite address space.
Is any of this actually implementable in the real world? No. But then no universal Turing Machine is implementable in the real world. At all. Ever.
But if we start demanding that circuits cannot be extended arbitrarily, then there is some arbitrary limit that you're placing on that circuit, and what happens when the next brand new technology comes out that increases that limit? Congratulations, your language was limited to 16-bit values, and then extended to 32-bit values, and now to 64-bit values, because the circuitry underlying it has extended and extended.
In the same way that programs are simply theoretical constructs, so are circuits... until EITHER of them are "realized", or "implemented", and then they become finite state machines, because the universe does not allow us to construct infinite-state machines... EVER, whether it be a program, or a circuit.
You seem to be so locked up in this world of "hardware is hardware, but software is way cooler!" That you cannot seem to recognize that hardware works with theoretical constructions as well, and they're not inherently limited to physical law any more than you are.
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorder In Gene Roddenberry contract if any of the technology in star trek gets invented they can use the name free of charge. Is it that now he is gone they will ignore that part of there original contract?
This isn't about the name, that would be a trademark issue, and CBS couldn't avail themselves of the DMCA. CBS is claiming a copyright on the design of LCARS, which this app uses.
Being that I'm not an actual lawyer, and just read in law, I can't say for sure if this is a valid copyright, but then I know enough to say that this probably ought be argued in a court... (the more you read in law, the more you want to actually litigate matters in general... I suppose it makes for good business for lawyers?)
If I appear confused, it's because you're using terminology extremely confusingly, and inconsistently.
Nearly every program ever written has been executed on circuitry. So, I am at a loss as to how you can disassociate the term "circuit" from "circuitry". We have plenty of circuitry that implements a finite-limited Turing-equivalent machine. If you want to draw the line and say, "that's exactly what I'm objecting about" there is the problem that we can conceive of infinite circuitry, even though we could never build it. So, if your argument is simply "a circuit is lesser because it is finite", and that's the only difference between it and a program, then really, it's a bad definition, because programs have to have a finite number of instructions in order to operate. "No they don't, they could be infinite", yeah, well so can circuits, and both are equally tractable matters.
And I never stated that operators were not a fundamental description. In fact, my comment that SPARC C compilers have to produce a loop of instructions in order to produce an divide operator was intended to show that what is "fundamental" at one level, is actually composite in a deeper level. But to that specific layer of abstraction, "operator" is fundamental. But this is done in the same way as Chemistry dealing with the atom. In Chemistry, the fundamental component of an element is the atom, (or nucleus/electrons separately) because all matters of Chemistry operate as if atoms were fundamental particles, even though we know and understand through Physics that it is not.
As circuits require a static finite set of connections it is far from "trivial" to extend circuits to simulate Turing Machines.
Yet nearly every computer processor has been designed to do this... how? Feedback loops.
So like, what the hell, is there anything about circuits that bar them from implementing Turing machines except that they are finite? And regardless of your answer about what the hell "circuits" are, why cannot I not, for a programming language, define the concept of "nand" apart from any physical implementation and use it as an operator?
And then I didn't ever use "trivial" to say that making an infinite circuit is easy. When I used the word "trivial", I used it in the mathematical sense (you know, that stuff you have to take in order to understand computers properly.) As in "Find the non-trivial factors of 3948569384"... because the "trivial factor" is 1. (Duh.) So equally in this case, I was saying that circuits can implement a Turing-machine, except that (duh) they can't be infinite in physical implementations.
It doesn't offend me in the slightest when people make mistakes in my field, and I even take the time to correct them. You seem to think that your point was commonly understood, when sadly it is in fact a commonly misunderstood point, as your replies demonstrate.
Except you fell into my nasty rhetorical trap. The statement "begs the question" means specifically a logical fallacy where one asserts as true the conclusion in the process of a proof or argument. Yet, you seem to have readily understood it to mean: "raises the question". Which raises the question: did you not understand what I intended to say when I said "nand is Turing-complete"? Because it sure seems like you understood what I was intending to say...
Seems like you'd need a pretty big otp.
"We're going to need a bigger pad..."
FPGAs are great and all, but how much work do you need special-driven hardware for? I mean, if you're using a custom chip, then an FPGA makes sense, but anything you want to do in FPGA "hard"ware could be done with software as well...
3) implement an FPGA based one time pad data encryption system to transmit recon data to the nearby recon team.
I'm not sure if you're just not sure why a one-time pad encryption method is absolutely secure, and you're just throwing out buzzwords to sound like you'e providing security, or if you're thinking of a highly convoluted process that can be accomplished much more simply.
Realistically, you need a true random pad to be generated and sent to both receiver and transmitter, and then once the pad is used, it need be "burned" (or otherwise reliably destroyed). As the pad needs to be generated prior to sending out the UAV, the whole transmitter could honestly be accomplished with a simple Z80, and a large store of RAM... there's no reason to complicate things by throwing an FPGA into the mix... if you intended the FPGA system to generate the pad on the fly, then that isn't a one-time pad... either the pad would end up being deterministic, and thus not be truly random (which I grant you, could still make the decryption intractable, but it wouldn't make it unbreakable, which is the whole purpose of a one-time pad... we have intractable encryption routines already, and they're well tested.), or it would need to additionally communicate the random pad to the receiver, which requires a secure transmission channel, and at that point, why not just transmit your communications through that channel instead?
Operators are the fundamental definition of gates, so many methods of composing operators will only produce circuits
Funny, the gcc compiler for SPARC produces a loop (rolled or unrolled) for "a * b"... but that would seem to contradict your assertion that operators are the fundamental definition of gates... But then, even on the x86 the DIV opcode works as a circuit-based loop, rather than just simply a gate. But then as well, if circuits can loop themselves, then they could implement a Turing Machine, and then your whole argument that "circuits aren't Turing Machines" kind of fails... (except for the trivial "it's not infinite" case... after all, let us presume such a circuit with infinite precision, and infinite memory... voila, a true Turing-Equivalent Machine.)
Odd that you would write compilers, and write papers about them without being aware of these glaring counterexamples to your argument... but then no one has ever asserted that just because someone works in a field, that they must then be a genius at it.
The standard test of TC is the ability to write a TM simulation within the language. This requires sufficiently strong logic operations (such as nand), some form of flow control and some form of storage.
The requirement of "storage" completely slipped my mind, I suppose in the same way that I don't usually consider "words" to be a requirement for human speech. Getting anything done without storage at all is almost impossible, not to mention, storage usually is introduced to a language before even flow control, as it is typically easier to implement.
But then, I do suppose there are number of "calculator languages" that are not Turing complete, as they don't have storage... but then they also usually lack flow control as well, so lacking "storage" is typically the least of their problems... not to mention that I would conjecture that given sufficient amounts of flow control, I could fake variable storage with program state... (we are talking about an infinite Turing Machine here after all...)
But even confusing an operator that is complete over the set of all operators with a language that can simulate any other language is too large a nit for my tastes.
Which I suppose begs the question, do you get upset at all commonly abused, yet nevertheless well understood statements? Or just ones that pertain to your particular field of work?
It might seem like a petty distinction, but it is quite important: anything built out of nand gates is a circuit, never a program. Thus nand gates cannot describe a language, only a circuit that implements something that processes the language. The difference only becomes visible when you look at large (ie Turing Complete) languages as they are too large (infinite) to be implemented on a finite size circuit, although we use approximations of them all the time. Only on slashdot would you be nitpicked for conflating the two :)
I find it telling that you're so eager to nitpick, that you entirely miss the point that I am speaking about the abstract concept of the logical relationship "A nand B", and not circuitry... because--you know--a language can exist without circuitry... you know, by building it off of theoretical concepts describing relationships... which we in the compiler business term "operators".
When I spoke of "nand is Turing Complete" it was shorthand for "nand is sufficient for operator completeness w.r.t. Turing Completeness". As Turing Completeness is composed of two parts: operators and flow-control. So, your claim that such elements "have little in common with one another", is like claiming that a banana peel has little in common with a banana. In fact, one is simply properly a subset of the other.
"But I was talking about circuits, and a universal set of circuits is different from Turing Completeness". Why yes, indeed it is, but you're forgetting again: I wasn't talking about circuits. I was talking about these concepts which we classify as "operators". You're the one who seems to be misinterpreting my statements in order to draw circuits into the matter... I can wonder why, but the only reason I can particularly come up with is: you're not used to the concept of "nand" as being anything other than a circuit.
Only on slashdot would someone entirely miss the abstract concept of "nand" for the concrete example of circuitry, and proceed to nitpick that misinterpretation beyond the actual content of my post...
I think you are thinking of "Beating the Averages" by Paul Graham. Your summary of the essay is really not doing it justice...
This is recommended reading for anyone interested in programming.
I willingly admit that my summary isn't doing it justice. However, I could not remember the details, nor did I have enough information to find the proper essay and refresh myself on the details. Thus, I stuck to details that I was sure of, and quite vague about what I was not sure of. Thus, a vague description with enough specifics that 10 people can bang the link over my head. ;)
Yes, that's precisely the essay I was referring to. :) Thank you.
Universal sets of gates and complete languages have little in common with one another.
Yes, nand needs some flow control to be useful as a fully functional language.
Yes. And you call that readable ?!? Infix, postfix and prefix languages are all equivalent (well, for 2 arguments only in the case of infix). Some are easier on the brain, that is all.
The entire point of my post was that one particular form isn't actually universally easier on the brain... it is predominantly about what one has experience with as to what is easier on any individual's brain.
This entire rant falls so far away from reality that it doesn't surprise me that you're posting this as an anonymous coward. Willing to speak your bullshit, but unwilling to have such speech associated with your own name, because you understand how offensive it is. Perhaps though, you're just ignorant to how offensive it is to truth.
The youth of Germany well understand how Nazism was bad, and in recent elections, when a Nazi-apologist sought election signs and protests against Nazism, and satirical comedy depicting the well known Nazi symbols with humor.
This "statist government" out to destroy human rights as you claim, oddly has as Article I of their constitution their Bill of Rights. They restrict speech that could lead to Nazi-like fanaticism and another horrible repression of human rights, and destruction of human dignity. This idea that they're openly hostile to conservatives is also crazy, since the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union) is the major party and currently controls the Chancellory. Yes, their conservative party is currently in charge, and running things.
"But the CDU/CSU isn't conservative enough, the more conservative individuals are being repressed!" Well, yes, the reactionaries in Germany do experience suppression of their speech... because shock the Nazis were/are reactionaries! And before you start complaining that they're treating reactionaries wrongly, they also suppress radical positions as well. Any extremist is likely to meet with opposition in Germany, because they of all people have seen the horrors that an extremist government can wrought upon the world.
16 years? And people bitch about Parrot and Perl 6....
I've tried to look at Parrot to implement my own scripting language in it... every time I've set down to get it done, it's ended up being easier said than done...
2. Non-problems: Developers often get excited by "problems" that don't exist outside of their niche or mind, and then develope something to solve it. While this might work in the niche, it rarely works in the general case (thoguh there are a few notable exceptions).
To be fair, I prefer the academic world, where niche problems are the soup de jour, and no one particularly complains. We work on the weird stuff, because that's what we like and want to work on. Forget you and your "getting work done" mentality... I'm here to play around ;)
Scheme and other lisp-like languages really are given a bad rap in some cases. I remember reading about someone working on a webpage offering various services (like slashdot, or facebook, etc), and while their competitors all went with C++ (yeah, they did a lot of that back in the day) or something else a little clunky. Meanwhile, this webpage chose to do everything in Scheme, or other lisp-like language (LLL?) and as a result any time their competitors rolled out a new feature, they could whip up comparable behavior in a few hours. Thus demonstrating the utility of a rabid (should be rapid, but I almost like the typo) prototyping language for webpage development over C++, PHP, or Perl.
So is brainfuck.
So is nand.
Lisp is but a remnant of an age with far too much LSD and Napalm.
You don't see such a juxtaposition in common use. I, however, greatly approve.
What I don't understand—admittedly, as a non-programmer—is why they don't just say "From now on, Emacs Lisp is the GNU extension language." Or, alternatively, that Guile continues to be the GNU extension language, but that as of Emacs 26 (or whatever version), Emacs Lisp will conform to the Guile specification.
Having both just seems like splitting resources to no good end to me.
It is all part of our (the vim users) evil plans to continue to subvert and destroy emacs. Enjoy your differently-abled extensible languages suckers!
(plus 7 (minus 4 5) (some-function ( * my-var 3))) is more difficult to read for the same reason that typing in all caps without spaces is more difficult to read: we don't have a lot of practice at it.
That said, my go-to one-liner evaluation language is a lisp-like language without parentheses*, and while I'm getting pretty good at typing out expressions in a prefix notation, the line "/ + * 3 + * 5 2 * 4 4 + * 5 2 * 4 3 + * 6 3 5..." still isn't easier to really read than the equivalent infix version of: "(3 * (5 * 2 + 4 * 4) + (5 * 2 + 4 * 3)) / (6 * 3 + 5)"
*: How can a lisp-like language work without parentheses? It's a context-sensitive language that assumes a default number of arguments to functions, which can either be extended by using "," or truncated/terminated by using "."
I can't find any relevant case law that overrides your understanding of the text. However I should note, the intent of the wiretapping laws was to protect communications, and as such, a picture containing static that I send to someone else isn't particularly "communication", and thus is outside of the scope of the purpose of the law. That being said, interception of a fax is an interception of an image that also conveys communication, and therefore would fall into the scope of the purpose of the law.
Considering the later hypothetical, I don't know how well this argument would fly in court, but any lawyer who doesn't at least attempt to argue it ("It's not communication and was thus outside of the purpose of the law") is not a good lawyer.
But I will agree, it's highly likely that any judge would rule that images transmitted through the internet would qualify as wiretapping. Of course, this also assumes that the communication was interstate (an erotic webcam chat between g/f and b/f? Almost certainly interstate, if they were in the same state, they would more likely just get together). If the communication was intrastate, then the Federal laws don't even matter, and the individual state involved is the relevant matter. (As with anything in law, the more you poke at it, the more exceptions end up falling out.)
Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.
I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.
Wiretapping only applies to communication, it does not apply to pictures. A landlord putting a secret camera in your apartment is a violation of your expectations of privacy, and not a wiretapping issue.