Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying? 
Author Message
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?


Quote:
> Just as there are those who assume that Christianity
> implies goodness, there are some who assume that
> goodness implies Christianity.

And let's not forget about the folks who use a very strange form of
dynamic scoping when talking about their pet religion (often
Christianity in my particular address space).  Instances of class
"Christian" are apparently untyped and unqualified until someone
points out some exponent of stupidity or evil that IsA Christian.
Suddenly, future accesses to such an instance are restricted to the
"False" namespace, while other Christian instances are put into the
"True" namespace.

This dynamic scoping appears to have no real purpose, because when you
access either instance through the introspection API, they both report
they are in the "True" namespace and both are instances of class
Christian!  Clearly this is the result of buggy software.  Indeed,
when I've gone into the de{*filter*} and dumped the underlying code, you
see sometimes large differences in the binary image, but they both
retain the same interfaces.

Of course, I'm running under Atheist 3.0.3, which offers a superior
non-iconic user interface.  Yet, even though I can't directly
interpret the data structures of Christian objects (that's a feature,
not a bug), I can view the underlying machine code without any
problem.  And there I found something funny.  Whatever standards body
first created the Christian object actually silently derived it from
the abstract superclass Human!

Many users of the Christian object model don't seem to realize this
relationship to the Human superclass.  It's probably because their
religion isn't Open Source and so the code doesn't get a lot of peer
review.  And if that wasn't bad enough, the design documentation that
originally specified the object model has been transmitted through so
many repeaters that the signal has become severely distorted.  Worse,
much of the documentation has been compressed with lossy algorithms,
resulting in even more signal loss!

Proponents of the Christian object model suggest that they have
advanced signal processing techniques to reconstruct not only the
signal, but the semantic hidden in the signal.  I seriously doubt this
technology-- if you look at the transmission with a network analyzer,
you can easily see too many collisions from each of the nodes.  That's
a result of their primitive protocol, which promotes each node to talk
without listening first.

Regardless, many of the attributes and methods of instances of class
Christian really are useless specializations of the *same* interfaces
in the Human superclass.  For example, Jerry pointed out that some
people claim that having a the "goodness" set of interfaces implies an
instance of class Christian.  Yet this is only because of the
inheritance relationship to superclass Human!

Of course, there are subclasses of Christian-- currently over 3000 in
the world today.  Talk about bloated hierarchical APIs!  There are
many redundant subclasses that differ from their superclasses only in
small ways.  And these subclasses often have weird redefinitions of
common interfaces.  For example, one Christian subclass offers the
common "goodness" set of interfaces, but offers the
BlowUp{*filter*}Clinic method!  Talk about non-intuitive design!

I've cut a lot of fat out of my code by simply removing class
Christian.  Since the Human superclass already supports all the same
interfaces I care about (the goodness, compassion, love, and caring
APIs), I'm not missing anything.  There is an impedance mismatch when
doing remote procedure calls to systems that are still based on the
Christian standard (even the new Christian 2000 standard), but I just
restrict myself to the common superclass Human and I run into few
problems.



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:

>   (someone accused me of posting "the world according to me" articles some
>   time ago.  since I am already accused of it, at least I deserve it now.)

I don't know why all these waaaay off-topic articles occur in
comp.lang.lisp lately, but now that you have posted your (excellent)
article, can we please stop this discussion?

      I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds
      one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity
      that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that
      all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to
      him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each
      mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a
      world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill
      a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

       ---Albert Camus

--
  (espen)



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?


[much entertainment snipped]

Quote:
>Of course, I'm running under Atheist 3.0.3, which offers a superior
>non-iconic user interface.  

Is that the Alpha/Omega release?

--
Keith Wootten



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:53:09 -0400, "John Passaniti"

        So, errr, was that the SOOP object model you were usin
there, or MOPS, or which?  Or a veiled allusion to a new object
model under development?



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:
> Locking someone up for life is a waste of taxpayer money,

So is locking up someone for stealing something. Far cheaper to chop of the
hand that did the stealing. I'm a taxpayer too, and I'm proud to be able to
pay for a bit of civilization. BTW, if you really want to discuss the life in
terms of money, if you look at the actual numbers, the lengthy process of
appeals in death sentences turns out to be much more expensive than just
locking them up. But you could of course get rid of the appeals process too.

Quote:
> and is more cruel than just killing them, IMO (would you rather die
> quickly, or spend the rest of your life in a smelly prison getting{*filter*}d
> and beaten regularly by the guards and other inmates?).

Ask the convict. Let him choose. Interestingly, arguments such as yours tend
to come from circles that frown upon euthanasia as well.

Quote:
> Also, if you are merely locking them up, there is always a chance that they
> might get out and wreak more havoc.  So as I said above, killing them is
> the only 100% reliable way to keep them from ever doing it again.

yes, the best way to guarantee that a case is never opened again is to kill
the suspect. If the convict is (was) in fact not guilty, the real culprit is
still at large, not known to be a criminal, and not very likely to be removed
from society until the next offense. Makes me feel real safe.

[...]

Quote:
> there will always be people that are wrongly convicted.  

Pity you can't correct errors in case of life and death.

                                                             Philip
--
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

+44 (0)1223 49 4639                 | Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax)           | Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD,  GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC  50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Hello William,

I apologize for being so far off topic, and for the cross posting.  That is
why I added the extra "are Christians Good?" to the end of the subject,
so people that don't want to read it, can ignore it.

I don't believe in foisting my opinions onto people that don't want to
hear them, but the posting demanded a response.

I will try to restrain myself in the future, but I can't make any promises.
My general technique for something like this is to respond publicly for
the initial message, then to revert to email for further interaction.

Just my thoughts,

Tom Zimmer

Quote:



> Yeesh.  This junk is SO far off topic it's sick.  Can it, okay?  This can
> be carried out PERFECTLY well on the appropriate NGs (I wouldn't mind if
> this topic wasn't causing such a flamewar).

> --
> -William "Billy" Tanksley



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?

Quote:

> > Locking someone up for life is a waste of taxpayer money,

> So is locking up someone for stealing something. Far cheaper to chop of the
> hand that did the stealing. I'm a taxpayer too, and I'm proud to be able to
> pay for a bit of civilization.

Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence, head.
The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.

Quote:
> BTW, if you really want to discuss the life in
> terms of money, if you look at the actual numbers, the lengthy process of
> appeals in death sentences turns out to be much more expensive than just
> locking them up. But you could of course get rid of the appeals process too.

Well, you wouldn't want to totally eliminate the appeals process, but
you would want to curtail it.  There are many cases though, where the
guilt of the suspect is beyond doubt (Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer,
Ed Gein(sp?), etc).  There is no appeals process needed for these
individuals.  They can be terminated quickly.  Why is Manson still
alive?

Quote:
> > and is more cruel than just killing them, IMO (would you rather die
> > quickly, or spend the rest of your life in a smelly prison getting{*filter*}d
> > and beaten regularly by the guards and other inmates?).

> Ask the convict. Let him choose. Interestingly, arguments such as yours tend
> to come from circles that frown upon euthanasia as well.

I don't have a problem with the convict choosing if he can afford to
pay for his own incarceration.  But you need to figure out some way to
keep him from possibly being able to leave, like implanting a poison
capsule and a radio receiver in his back so that if he gets beyond a
certain range from the prison he is killed by the poison automatically.

That is interesting indeed what you say about euthanasia opponents.  I
can't understand the connection you are trying to make.  I am totally
in favor of euthanasia.  I think the world would be a much better
place if more people practiced it.

Anyways I really should stop being so flagrantly offtopic.  This is
the last public post I will make on these issues.



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?


Quote:
> ..
> Locking someone up for life is a waste of taxpayer money, and is more
> cruel than just killing them, IMO (would you rather die quickly, or
> spend the rest of your life in a smelly prison getting{*filter*}d and
> beaten regularly by the guards and other inmates?).  Also, if you are

Apparently death sentences with automatic appeal etc being drawn through
the courts for years, keeping convicts in jail for a life time isn't
much more expensive (at least in the US)

Quote:
> merely locking them up, there is always a chance that they might get
> out and wreak more havoc.  So as I said above, killing them is the
> only 100% reliable way to keep them from ever doing it again.

How about automatic deat sentence for anybody who some shrink determines
to have {*filter*} tendencies?

Quote:

>> 2. I live in a country that has no death penalty (furtunately).  There
>>    are two cases in recent history were I wouldn't have minded it being
>>    applied.  OTOH, without even trying to strain my memory, there have
>>    been at least 7 cases in the last 10 years where people were found
>>    guilty of crimes that no doubt would have carried the death penalty
>>    who (often significantly) later were proven to be innocent.  Given
>>    the effort and dedication it took to prove their innocence, I have no
>>    doubt that the actual number of  wrongfully convicted is
>>    significantly higher.

> Whoever said life is fair?  People get wrongly convicted of all sorts
> of things all the time.  With current judicial technology, there is
> nothing that can be done about it.  We just have to do the best we

Mistakes are always made.  But it is a sign of extreme stupidity to set
up a system where it is impossible to correct mistakes.  An aslternative
could be (to ensure that justice is carried out prudently) to legislate
an automatic death sentence for judge, jury, police and DAs involved
plus one randomly selected death penalty supporter every time somebody
who has been executed later is proven to be innocent.  I thinkl I could
live with that.

Quote:
> can; otherwise we might as well just give up and completely eliminate
> courts, laws, and jails.  Since this would be extremely unpleasant for
> most people, I think we are better off, overall, with having laws and
> enforcing them the best we can, knowing that we aren't perfect and
> there will always be people that are wrongly convicted.  This way,
> only some people lose some of the time, as opposed to anarchy, where
> most everyone loses almost all the time.

Now how does anarchy come into that (btw, I am sure that anarchy is
preferrable to some systems that are full of law and order)

--

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 433 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software