From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7nfqma$fkj$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Clemens Heitzinger  writes:
> Bernd Paysan <············@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > You are makeing the same fault these people and the writers of the
> > declaration of independence did, you equate unequality with unequal
> > values. This lead to many discriminations (e.g. women are obviously
> > unequal to men, and therefore it took quite a while to get them the sam=
> e
> > rights. Same as black/indian people obviously were unequal to white
> > people, and therefore completely left out of the original DoI, by
> > declaring "all white men are born equal". Hm, me thinks they didn't hav=
> e
> > a midwife in the team ;-).
> 
> Coincidentally, I have a dictionary lying in front of me, so let's
> have a look...
> 
> I don't know which "original DoI" you are referring to, do you have a
> reference?  The one printed in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged
> Dictionary of the English Language reads as follows:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence
> In Congress, July 4, 1776
> 
> [...]
> 
> We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable =
> 
> Rights [...]"
> 
> And while we are at it,
> 
> "man [...] 4. a human being; a person (usually used in contexts in
> which sexual distinctions are not relevant) [...]"
> 
> Yours,
> Clemens -- sorry for being offtopic.
> -- =

If you hadn't posted the correction, I would have. The Declaration
of Independence, one of the two foundation documents of the American
experiment, refers neither to race nor--given the vagaries of
the English language--to sex.
 
The original US Constitution, to its disgrace, considers "persons born
in a condition of servitude" (I think that is how it is phrased--I
don't have my copy nearby) equal to 3/5 of free persons for the purpose
of proportional representation in the House of Representatives. But it
also makes no reference to race.

There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the Indians
killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers. Most loss of Indian
population took place through disease, not warfare. That was certainly
unfortunate, to say the least, but it is easy to forget that smallpox,
diphtheria, chicken pox and whooping cough--not to mention cholera,
typhus and typhoid fever--killed lots of Europeans in America. Medicine
just wasn't very good at that time, and the mortality rates for Euros
(from those diseases) stood at close to 50%. The main reason the Euro-
peans dominated the Americas had to do with their agricultural lifestyle.
Agriculture permits much higher population densities than hunting.


-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann

From: Len Zettel
Subject: Equality and indians was: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <379C6CC2.B062B19F@orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us>
"Julian V. Noble" wrote:
> 
(snip)
> The Declaration of Independence, one of the two foundation 
> documents of the American experiment, refers neither to
> race nor--given the vagaries of the English language--to sex.
> 

Off topic, but I am finally provoked to reply.  You have to consider
"all men are created equal" in the context of a world where your
value could be determined by who your parents were.  If they were
serfs, you were a serf.  If they were nobles, you were nobles, and
this God-ordained outcome could not be changed by anybody.  The revolutionary
feature of the declaration was to deny this.


> 
> There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
> treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the Indians
> killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers. 

I would vigorously deny this.  The Iroquois were subjected to systematic
genocide (more kindly, scorched earth warfare). during the revolutionary
war.  Their word for US president translates as "village burner". 

The Cherokee were moved to Oklahoma under the most incredibly inhumane
conditions that killed thousands in defiance of a supreme court order
in their favor.  Etcetra et cetra ad nauseam.

> Most loss of Indian population took place through disease, not warfare. 

True (as far as we know).

>That was certainly unfortunate, to say the least, 

It was also in at least some cases deliberate.  Lord Amherst is notorious
for advocating during what the US calls the "French and Indian" war 
spreading of small pox as a battle tactic, and
there is good documentation that this was done every now and again 
then and since.

(snip)

> The main reason the Europeans dominated the Americas had to do with 
> their agricultural lifestyle.
> Agriculture permits much higher population densities than hunting.

Also crucial was the fact that it supported a military technology
(mass armies with firearms who could conduct a sustained campaign)
that the natives had no way of matching.  They could exist only at
the sufferance of the white man, who in many cases really believed
"the only good Indian is a dead Indian".

War in North America on both sides was much more reminiscent of 
the Balkans than anything that occurred in Western Europe at the
time.
   -LenZ-

   
> 
> --
> Julian V. Noble
> ···@virginia.edu
> 
> "Elegance is for tailors!"      -- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86d7xgfeyn.fsf@g.local>
Julian V. Noble wrote:

> There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
> treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the Indians
> killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.

Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the Indians' land,
and the Indians have the *temerity* to object and even to *gasp*
fight the people who invaded their country. Disgraceful!

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <379BC9FF.7012@ieee.org>
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> 
> Julian V. Noble wrote:
> 
> > There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
> > treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the Indians
> > killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.
> 
> Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the Indians' land,
> and the Indians have the *temerity* to object and even to *gasp*
> fight the people who invaded their country. Disgraceful!
> 
> --
> Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
> sig under construction

In at least one case, the Indians contracted their smallpox from
infected blankets donated to them for the purpose. Not the first
instance of germ warfare, but an early one.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: John Passaniti
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <O7Qm3.545$Yk3.3692@newsr1.twcny.rr.com>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote in message
···················@g.local...
> Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the
> Indians' land, and the Indians have the *temerity*
> to object and even to *gasp* fight the people who
> invaded their country. Disgraceful!

Well what do you expect from savages?  Good thing god-fearing
Christians came in to show them the way!  We all know that anything
drenched in Christianity automatically is blessed with love and
compassion.

(whoops-- off topic-- better recover...)

Damn those C savages.  They're hardly dealing with any meaningful
abstraction at all.  Good thing we [Lisp|Forth] fans can sweep in and
show them the way.  We all know that anything with [Lisp|Forth] in it
is automatically better.
From: Ken Deboy
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B238C5.B08067D3@alternavision.com>
John Passaniti wrote:

> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote in message
> ···················@g.local...
> > Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the
> > Indians' land, and the Indians have the *temerity*
> > to object and even to *gasp* fight the people who
> > invaded their country. Disgraceful!
>
> Well what do you expect from savages?  Good thing god-fearing
> Christians came in to show them the way!  We all know that anything
> drenched in Christianity automatically is blessed with love and
> compassion.
>
> (whoops-- off topic-- better recover...)

 You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
to
justify their evil ways. It is true that historically some "Christians"
have used
their "religion" to justify acts which are contrary to the teachings of
the Bible,
just as some "Muslims" use their religion to justify acts which are
contrary
to the teachings of the Koran. To imply that Christianity (or any faith)
is
bad just because some people who claim to follow it are bad is stupid. Or

haven't you heard that it is wrong to stereotype? I bet you'd be pissed
off
if someone stereotyped you...

With best wishes,
Ken
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3143457448078355@naggum.no>
* Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com>
| You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
| to justify their evil ways.

  I'm interested in a simple, straight-forward way to keep the two apart,
  for it seems to me that religions are the best vehicles to further evil:
  those who act out of a belief without doubt will also not stop acting
  when people who had retained the capacity to doubt would have stopped.

  to remain a good person while being Christian is a lot harder than to
  remain a good person without religious beliefs -- there's no one you can
  ask forgiveness or to take responsiblity for your actions, there's no
  illusion of a greater purpose that defends acts of evil and destruction
  (like bombing abortion clinics or killing believers in other religions)
  or to fill the void of a meaningless, wasted life, and there's no way you
  can avoid being responsible for your own actions.  without a forgiving
  "God", your only reference is HUMAN RIGHTS, and they cannot be forfeited
  or reneged because some "God" told you to.  there's no hope at all of
  somehow making up for your evil deeds by a prayer or a silly conversion
  to a religious belief: you have to be aware of what you do and why.  a
  Christian can do evil, stupid things and just cry and ask forgiveness
  over and over again.  non-believers can't do that: they have to _think_.
  this is hard, too, but it's much harder to be good when you _don't_ think.

  still, I have the highest admiration for those who remain good people
  despite being Christian: it shows real character to put yourself in the
  midst of a deeply evil temptation that doesn't exist at all without the
  unconditional forgiveness and _not_ abuse the ability to be forgiven for
  everything you do or the ability to point to "God's will" to explain your
  evil actions -- whether it's true or not does is irrelevant to victims
  and perpetrator alike.  for a non-believer, the temptation doesn't exist:
  you can't even blame "society" for your actions, anymore, although some
  socialists tried to put society in God's place just that way.  it failed,
  for good reason: there's a limit to other people's power to cause people
  to act irrationally, quite contrary to the power of an omnipotent "God".

  on the other hand, people who think they are good _because_ they are
  Christians are likely to commit unspeakable evils in the name of their
  religion because they are no longer fully responsible for their actions:
  they are somehow _exempt_ from normal ethical considerations.  _this_ is
  why Christianity is bad per se -- no person should ever even have the
  _opportunity_ to find an excuse for not being responsible for his own
  actions.  the only thing that keeps Christians from being bad is that
  they were good people to start with; since most people are good to begin
  with, it seems there are more good Christians than bad: the interesting
  measure is that there is a far higher ratio of bad people to good within
  Christianity than without, not the least because our society accepts any
  murderer or violent criminal who "repents" -- a fat lot of good _that_
  does for the victim and his family!  good people don't need religions,
  but it also doesn't harm them, it just makes it a little harder to remain
  good.  bad people need religions in order to pretend to be good, as most
  people have a very deep psychological need to feel they are good people.
  Christianity is bad because it gives bad people the ability to believe
  they are good even when that is not the case at all.

  moreover, Christianity is bad because it _requires_ good people to cover
  for the bad people among them.  this is shared with all of the violent
  religions, including Islam.  it is also shared with Communism, which
  keeps the belief that the ideology is clean and good, practitioners not.
  if you are always willing to remove a factor when something goes wrong,
  you will never understand what the real causes are, and nothing helps
  prevent such understanding better than an undoubtable belief that the
  ideology or theology is above reproach by definition: it leads to a hunt
  for scapegoats, too.  (the very concept of a scapegoat is evil, and it is
  no surprise at all that it was invented by a religion: if _you_ aren't
  good, at least you can sacrifice someone else to make up for it.)

  the incredibly destructive belief that the spirit is somehow good when
  the flesh is evil can also be created only in athmosphere of religion.
  if you don't have a religious belief, the force of imagination necessary
  to sever the two from eachother cannot arise.  what none of these belief
  systems understand is that some people are bad only when they can find an
  excuse, and they find it in the "spirit".  however, when they can't find
  any, they just won't do the bad things.  to some people, jealousy, rage,
  alcohol, etc, provide temporary excuses, but no excuse is as permanent as
  the imaginary forgiveness of an omnipotent God, and no force is stronger
  than that which keeps people believing in that which keeps them from
  realizing they are truly bad people.  in this sense, Christianity _needs_
  for people to sin in order to forgive them and thus keep them hostage,
  and what better way to ensure that they cannot leave Christianity and the
  forgiveness of their "loving" God by reminding every child and every
  believer that they are _all_ sinners?

  let me summarize by saying that I think most people are good people, even
  though a lot fewer Christians are good people than non-believers in
  religions originating in the Near East, and that any Christian who is
  also a good person deserves _praise_ for having remained unaffected by
  his religion, but if it's hard to be good within Christianity, people
  should realize that without the temptation of unconditional forgiveness,
  it's a lot easier not ever to do bad things in the first place, the love
  is true and devoid of blackmail and it can be _deserved_ for a change,
  there's no prospect of spending an eternity either in Hell or in Heaven:
  your life just ends, and it's up to you to fill it with meaning in the
  meantime.  and above all: you have no duties you don't accept yourself
  and no power to instill duties upon others in the name of any "power".
  there is no innate guilt for any original sin: you are _not_ a sinner if
  you do not actually commit evil deeds.  if you commit destructive deeds
  by mistake or are the victim of one, neither revenge nor punishment does
  any _good_; you don't forgive or expect forgiveness: you rectify and
  expect restitution and you judge people not according to what they have
  done, but according to what they have learned from their mistakes and
  what they are likely to do in future -- that's all you could possibly
  care about, anyway: the past is a fact and you cannot change it or act
  as�if it is any different than it is without peril to your sanity or
  integrity.  the only _sin_ is not to do your very best at all times to
  learn from the past, the only _evil_ to be inconsiderate about other
  people, whether by purpose or carelessness.  do _not_ follow you heart:
  it's a measure of how well you have done so far, not a navigational tool
  for the future: don't _feel_ bad, think it over and just _do_ better.
  and remember this: only fundamentally evil people will deny anyone the
  opportunity to improve, rectify their mistakes, and move on.  your life
  is _not_ your past: the only life you have is your future.  the worst
  crime you can commit towards anyone is to rob them of their future, and
  the only thing you can do to one bereft of his future is to restore it,
  for real, not through the trickery and illusion that religions provide.

  people who think in terms of vengeance, punishment, revenge, and who hate
  other people enough to bereave them of their future out of moral anger
  will never understand what any of this means until they understand that
  it is the belief in their own unconditional forgiveness for anything they
  do that causes them to believe that anyone who acts contrary to what they
  want should not have a future.  why is the belief in the death penalty so
  much stronger among Christians?  why is the same belief in the same death
  penalty for other crimes not as acceptable to these Christians?  why is
  it OK to kill criminals in revenge, but not OK to kill Salman Rushdie in
  revenge for his opinions?  the sorry fact is that forgiveness is a GOOD
  way to deal with a fundamentally SAVAGE view of man where punishment is a
  proper response to evil deeds, but the solution is never to engage in
  forgiveness, to stop being savages, to stop believing in and blaming and
  appealing to supernatural forces and just start to think.  if you can't
  become evil if you are Christian (as Christians claim when they refuse to
  consider the Christian beliefs of evil people), neither can you _become_
  good, so your Christian beliefs is NOT what will save you; being a good
  person is.  all the many gods mankind has invented over the years agree.
  trust me on this.  it doesn't matter what you believe, so you might as
  well stop wasting your time on it and especially on defending whatever
  religion you believe in, just prove that you are a good person despite it
  -- that's all anybody else should worry about, too.

  (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.)

#:Erik
-- 
  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))
From: ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <uvhal801g.fsf@NANOSTRUCTURE.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

>   people who think in terms of vengeance, punishment, revenge, and who hate
>   other people enough to bereave them of their future out of moral anger
>   will never understand what any of this means until they understand that
>   it is the belief in their own unconditional forgiveness for anything they
>   do that causes them to believe that anyone who acts contrary to what they
>   want should not have a future.  why is the belief in the death penalty so
>   much stronger among Christians?  why is the same belief in the same death
>   penalty for other crimes not as acceptable to these Christians?  why is
>   it OK to kill criminals in revenge, but not OK to kill Salman Rushdie in
>   revenge for his opinions? 

I agree with most of your article; religion in general and Chrisianity
in particular is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind.  I
have to point out, though, that even though I am not a Christian or
any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
over with.

Another example of how Chrisitanity has twisted things around: the
Christians consider assassination to be evil; they prefer to kill
thousands of patriotic young men and innocent civilians on both sides
just to somehow send The Bad Guy a message, rather than just sending
in an elite team of hatchetmen to take him out.  I personally find
warfare to be much more distasteful than assassination (though in some
cases war is a necessity; sometimes you can't easily solve a problem
just by taking out one or a few key Bad Guys).  Obvious sociopaths
such as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovich, Pope John Paul, Pat
Robertson, Bill Gates and Larry Wall should not be tolerated; we
should expunge them as soon as they make themselves noticed by their
egregious disregard for humanity.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <QTCs3.43301$5r2.81839@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>
Even though this is off topicm this subject is too interesting:

In article <·············@nanostructure.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>,
	··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU writes:
> ...
> any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
> penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
> vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
> reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
> words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
> better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
> families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
> keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
> over with.

I must admit that there are a few cases where I wouldn't exactly mind if 
a criminal got executed, but:
   
1. the societal "self-defense" is nonsense.  If the perpetrator gets
   locked up, society is as safe as if he were killed.  If whatever
   reason that made him do it gets removed, society will be even safer

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.  

> ...

-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
From: ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <uso5o9a0v.fsf@nanostructure.utdallas.edu>
··@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:

> Even though this is off topicm this subject is too interesting:
> 
> In article <·············@nanostructure.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>,
> 	··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU writes:
> > ...
> > any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
> > penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
> > vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
> > reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
> > words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
> > better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
> > families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
> > keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
> > over with.
> 
> I must admit that there are a few cases where I wouldn't exactly mind if 
> a criminal got executed, but:
>    
> 1. the societal "self-defense" is nonsense.  If the perpetrator gets
>    locked up, society is as safe as if he were killed.  If whatever
>    reason that made him do it gets removed, society will be even safer

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 raped and
beaten regularly by the guards and other inmates?).  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.

> 
> 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
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.
From: Gary Curtis
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ov7ek$8bm$4@tomm.stsci.edu>
In article <·············@nanostructure.utdallas.edu>, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU writes:
|> > 
|> > 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
|> 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.

I think the point, in this context, is that a system without the
death penalty has the ability to correct, in some sense, an error
that was made, and which you clearly agree can and will be made
by our judicial system.

When the death penalty is used there is no going back. The knowledge
that innocent people *will* be put to death if such a penalty exists
means that I could never support it.

Gary.
--
 
From: Bruce Hoyt
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ngHs3.1427$q.43931@news.clear.net.nz>
Gary Curtis <······@radagast.sogs.stsci.edu> wrote in message
·················@tomm.stsci.edu...
> In article <·············@nanostructure.utdallas.edu>,
··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU writes:

> When the death penalty is used there is no going back. The
knowledge
> that innocent people *will* be put to death if such a penalty
exists
> means that I could never support it.

Do you support driving on the highway even though knowing that
innocent people *will* be killed?
From: Gavin E. Gleason
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87vhak7de7.fsf@hasdrubal.unm.edu>
Gary Curtis <······@radagast.sogs.stsci.edu> wrote 
> Do you support driving on the highway even though knowing that
> innocent people *will* be killed?
>

No.  Cars are stupid.

	Gavin E. Gleason


-- 
"Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon."
	-Alan Perlis
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <u71zd8m23l.fsf_-_@ebi.ac.uk>
> 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.

> 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 raped
> 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.

> 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.

[...]

> 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: ··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <uk8qzit0o.fsf@nanostructure.utdallas.edu>
Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:

> > 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.

> 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?

> > 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 raped
> > 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.
From: Timo Tossavainen
Subject: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B45689.FF368E4E@cs.uta.fi>
··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:

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

This is the road to totalitarianism.

"Thou shalt not kill"

It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death penalty
even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian ethics.

One must first wonder what is wrong with the system that produces these kinds of
people that commit the crimes. Less taxes, no more money to social security...
sound familiar ? Let's not help the people that aren't well off,  it's our money.
No wonder you have social problems. The road to civilization is to find and root
out the reasons for the antisocial behaviour, stopping it when the crime has
happened is too late. Do you seriously think that the death penalty is civilized
? Using lethal injections doesn't make it any more humane. Is the system that
kills the very people it has grown to be criminals more civilized than the
criminals themselves ? How humane is the community that doesn't care for all it's
members ? Of course there will always be crime, but more could be done at the
root. Making the punishments harder does not work in the long run, when things
are bad enough people won't care about the law no matter how hard it is.

What does this have to do with c.l.l and c.l.f ?

Timo

ps. I'm not against off topic discussion, it's easy enough to kill the thread in
the newsreader when it gets off topic.
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B4D4B0.359E@ieee.org>
Timo Tossavainen wrote:
> 
> ··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
> 
> > Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence, head.
> > The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.
> 
> This is the road to totalitarianism.
> 
> "Thou shalt not kill"
> 
> It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death penalty
> even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian ethics.
> 
Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
the stake.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Timo Tossavainen
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B50570.99696F36@cs.uta.fi>
Jerry Avins wrote:

> Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
> violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> the stake.

I'm not a religious person or a theologist, but I'll try to explain. My remark was
aimed at the people that are usually quite religious in principle but still
contradict it's principles in practice. In the old testament, yes it may say so.
Christian ethics are based on the life of Jesus and the new testament. There's a
big difference in the general tone of the two testaments. The old testament reminds
me of the way things are in the near east. The book contradicts itself in so many
places that I wonder how it is even possible to interpret it literally. Judaism is
based on the old testament and christianity also includes the new testament, which
is totally different. I would say that most people consider the ten commandments
the guiding principles of christian ethics and of course the golden rule, none of
which are pro death penalty in any way. Maybe it got a bit twisted in the dark ages
?

Of course I do not oppose the death penalty or the kind of punishments suggested in
the post I replied to on the basis of christian ethics alone. I think they are
unnecessary cruelty that should be avoided. The point is that the previous post
implied that harder punishments make a community more civilized and I disagree on
the basis of my own personal ethics and beliefs. I believe that a peaceful solution
that avoids violence is always preferable to the one that uses violence.

BTW, Did you know they removed evolution from the highschool curriculum in Kansas
? definitely progress.

Timo
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p3paa$gnc$1@news.campuscwix.net>
Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message ··················@ieee.org...
> Timo Tossavainen wrote:
> >
> > ··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence,
head.
> > > The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.
> >
> > This is the road to totalitarianism.
> >
> > "Thou shalt not kill"
> >
> > It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death
penalty
> > even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian
ethics.
> >
> Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
> violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> the stake.

It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
"Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."

Larry
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B77B36.393F@ieee.org>
Larry Elmore wrote:
> 
> Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message ··················@ieee.org...
> > Timo Tossavainen wrote:
> > >
> > > ··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence,
> head.
> > > > The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.
> > >
> > > This is the road to totalitarianism.
> > >
> > > "Thou shalt not kill"
> > >
> > > It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death
> penalty
> > > even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian
> ethics.
> > >
> > Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> > specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
> > violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> > the stake.
> 
> It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
> "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
> 
> Larry

A better literal translation, but not better in meaning. The term refers
to a poisoner of minds, a corruptor. Christians in power in formerly
pagan Europe called them witches, and treated then the same way.
Remember, when Saul was in trouble, he consulted the Witch of Endor. To
punish him, God gave his throne to David.

Jerry

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7rh148.udq.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 22:45:10 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
>Larry Elmore wrote:

>> Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message ··················@ieee.org...

>> > Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
>> > specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
>> > violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
>> > the stake.

>> It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
>> "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."

>A better literal translation, but not better in meaning.

Why do you believe so?  I don't recognise the root, and that was written a
LONG time ago.  The root is used in quite a few other places, none of
which make anything very clear.

>The term refers
>to a poisoner of minds, a corruptor. Christians in power in formerly
>pagan Europe called them witches, and treated then the same way.

Paul spoke to pagans on numerous occasions, and not only didn't kill them
(probably a good publicity move :), he spoke of their deities with
respect, and classed his God in with them (as the Unknown God).  Anyone
who does otherwise is obviously failing to understand, and the failure is
in their own bloody hands.

Interestingly enough, some of the strongest words in the NT are directed
against poisoners -- the translation in KJV is "sorcerors", but the Greek
word was "pharmacologia" -- studiers of drugs.

I have no reason for or against to believe that the word translated
"witch" in the OT means anything similar to "sorceror" in the NT.  Nor
have you.

>Remember, when Saul was in trouble, he consulted the Witch of Endor. To
>punish him, God gave his throne to David.

He consulted "a woman who had a familiar spirit." Not the same word (in
Hebrew), and not even a close form.  And he was punished for consulting
her, not for failing to kill her.  Altogether, VERY poor evidence for your
reading of "...not suffer a witch to live."

>Jerry

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B8BCAF.6C20@ieee.org>
William Tanksley wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 22:45:10 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
> >Larry Elmore wrote:
> 
> >> Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message ··················@ieee.org...
> 
> >> > Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> >> > specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
> >> > violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> >> > the stake.
> 
> >> It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
> >> "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
> 
> >A better literal translation, but not better in meaning.
> 
> Why do you believe so?  I don't recognise the root, and that was written a
> LONG time ago.  The root is used in quite a few other places, none of
> which make anything very clear.

I read very litle Hebrew. I was passing on information from a learned
friend, confirmed by my brother-in-law, a rabbi.
> 
> >The term refers
> >to a poisoner of minds, a corruptor. Christians in power in formerly
> >pagan Europe called them witches, and treated then the same way.
> 
> Paul spoke to pagans on numerous occasions, and not only didn't kill them
> (probably a good publicity move :), he spoke of their deities with
> respect, and classed his God in with them (as the Unknown God).  Anyone
> who does otherwise is obviously failing to understand, and the failure is
> in their own bloody hands.

Consider "I am the Lord thy God; thou shall have no other god before
me." That doesn't sound like a claim to be the only god. Rather, the
primary one.
> 
> Interestingly enough, some of the strongest words in the NT are directed
> against poisoners -- the translation in KJV is "sorcerors", but the Greek
> word was "pharmacologia" -- studiers of drugs.

Pobably a coincidence. The source language was different.
> 
> I have no reason for or against to believe that the word translated
> "witch" in the OT means anything similar to "sorceror" in the NT.  Nor
> have you.
> 
> >Remember, when Saul was in trouble, he consulted the Witch of Endor. To
> >punish him, God gave his throne to David.
> 
> He consulted "a woman who had a familiar spirit." Not the same word (in
> Hebrew), and not even a close form.  And he was punished for consulting
> her, not for failing to kill her.  Altogether, VERY poor evidence for your
> reading of "...not suffer a witch to live."

Of course he was punished for consulting her. I thought I had implied
that. I can't locate the "Thou shalt not" passage, but it's much before
Kings.
> 
> >Jerry
> 
> --
> -William "Billy" Tanksley

I wish you love and peace.

Jerry
From: David Whitacre
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37C31F93.4C7ED4C1@appworx.com>
I think you may be a bit off here as the line is "thou Shal not suffer a
poisoner of wells to live" this is from the middle east not europe where people
poisoned wels to take the land. I has nothing to do with ones mind.

Jerry Avins wrote:

> Larry Elmore wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message ··················@ieee.org...
> > > Timo Tossavainen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence,
> > head.
> > > > > The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.
> > > >
> > > > This is the road to totalitarianism.
> > > >
> > > > "Thou shalt not kill"
> > > >
> > > > It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death
> > penalty
> > > > even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian
> > ethics.
> > > >
> > > Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> > > specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as adultery and
> > > violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> > > the stake.
> >
> > It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
> > "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
> >
> > Larry
>
> A better literal translation, but not better in meaning. The term refers
> to a poisoner of minds, a corruptor. Christians in power in formerly
> pagan Europe called them witches, and treated then the same way.
> Remember, when Saul was in trouble, he consulted the Witch of Endor. To
> punish him, God gave his throne to David.
>
> Jerry
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
> of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
> from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37C354C3.4733@ieee.org>
David Whitacre wrote:
> 
> I think you may be a bit off here as the line is "thou Shal not suffer a
> poisoner of wells to live" this is from the middle east not europe where people
> poisoned wels to take the land. I has nothing to do with ones mind.
> 
, and I answered privately.

-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <pw-1308991422490001@166.84.250.180>
In article <·················@cs.uta.fi>, Timo Tossavainen <··@cs.uta.fi> wrote:

>··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
>
>> Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence, head.
>> The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.
>
>This is the road to totalitarianism.
>
>"Thou shalt not kill"
>
>It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death penalty
>even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian ethics.

There's also the minor problem of error. Consider, for example, that something
like half the people on death row in the state of Illinois this decade have been
released because evidence was found  proving that they were innocent. That's
not exactly what you would call getting off on a technicality.
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <4z3t3.7361$gO1.213382@news2.giganews.com>
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 20:31:53 +0300, Timo Tossavainen <··@cs.uta.fi>
wrote: 
>··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
>> Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence,
>> head. 
>> The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.
>
>This is the road to totalitarianism.

Yes, that likely is.

>"Thou shalt not kill"
>
>It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death
>penalty even though it's against one of the most basic principles of
>christian ethics. 

There is a difference between the word "kill" and the word "murder."

kill -HUP is not the same as kill -KILL is not the same as kill -TERM.
-- 
To iterate is human; to recurse, divine.
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <3143652901722811@naggum.no>
* Timo Tossavainen <··@cs.uta.fi>
| One must first wonder what is wrong with the system that produces these
| kinds of people that commit the crimes.

  what's wrong is thinking that political systems produce any kind of
  people.  "societies don't produce people.  people produce people."

  if a poor person turns to crime, that only explains why he's poor, not
  why he's a criminal.  likewise, if a poor person _demands_ that others
  keep him alive, that also explains why he's poor.  normal human decency,
  however, implies that we take care of people who come to us and ask for
  help in a way that makes it worth our while to help them, but begging is
  so disgustingly demeaning that one should _never_ help beggars.  this
  part of normal caring for other people has been destroyed by organized
  welfare, and people are turned into beggars because that's the only thing
  that works: the worst part of organized welfare is that you don't get
  help if you aren't sufficiently "needy".  requiring people to compete
  with others in terms of being the most needy is a really, truly horrible
  thing to do to them, as any prospect of bettering your condition also
  means you don't "deserve" support from the organized welfare, anymore.

  my take on it is that people who are allowed to think that they can
  _demand_ that others keep them alive and well start to think they are
  _deprived_ of it if others don't actually keep them alive and well, and
  such attitudes may well lead to criminal behavior as it already ignores
  the rights and needs of those who are required to care for them with
  nothing tangible in return, not even a thank-you.  stuff like that works
  in a traditional family setting, where having a child is an obligation
  that lasts at least 18 years, but societies don't produce children in the
  literal sense, either, so something above and beyond nature is needed and
  it's important that people agree on this and appreciate it.  an annoying,
  smelly child who demands candy from its parents in a grocery store is a
  different story altogether from an annoying, smelly grown-up who demands
  change from the same parents outside the same store, albeit for exactly
  the same reason.

  I also keep reminding myself that what is now the Western Civilization
  was once made up of people much less well off than what we call "poor"
  today, yet somehow they managed to become one of the most affluent
  civilizations in human history in the course of a few hundred years.
  what made it happen?  it sure wasn't welfare from outer space, and
  massive numbers of people died prematurely to make it happen.  it is
  politically correct today to accuse Europeans of stealing all the wealth
  from today's poor nations, but none of these poor nations ever _had_ any
  massive wealth to steal to begin with.  did we rob them of chances?  I
  don't get it.  chances don't come in a fixed supply, and we didn't steal
  _all_ of their natural resources all at once, anyway.  what made Western
  Civilization?  I don't know, but I know it wasn't a demand that somebody
  give us a chance and until we got it, we would sit on our asses and wait,
  so I don't understand why we have started to reward such demands so much.

#:Erik
-- 
  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))
From: Timo Tossavainen
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B66BCA.854F624A@cs.uta.fi>
Erik Naggum wrote a surprisingly mild reply:

> * Timo Tossavainen <··@cs.uta.fi>
> | One must first wonder what is wrong with the system that produces these
> | kinds of people that commit the crimes.
>
>   what's wrong is thinking that political systems produce any kind of
>   people.  "societies don't produce people.  people produce people."

Of course you are right, but the society has a profound impact on the people
that produce people; we are social animals. By system I meant the whole
thing: family, education, work, etc... not a political system, which is only a
part of it.

>   requiring people to compete  with others in terms of being the most needy
> is a really, truly horrible
>

Who ever said that welfare should be unconditional ? There is a lot of work to
do and I don't see a reason why people who are on welfare couldn't do a little
work for their income. I don't like freeriders any more than you do, but
they're not the reason why we shouldn't help people that are temporarily in a
bad situation. I'm not qualified to make suggestions for these systems, but I
firmly believe that there are better alternatives than the ones used now.

One other minor factor is that at least in the IT business people have to work
overtime and everything is very much efficiency oriented; people burn out and
sometimes just snap. I think there was such a case in the US just a few days
ago. Everything is about competition and therefore extremely stressful. People
don't give a fsck about working hours when they have to compete with each
other in productivity.

>   my take on it is that people who are allowed to think that they can
>   _demand_ that others keep them alive and well start to think they are
>   _deprived_ of it if others don't actually keep them alive and well, and
>   such attitudes may well lead to criminal behavior as it already ignores
>   the rights and needs of those who are required to care for them with
>   nothing tangible in return, not even a thank-you.
>

Criminal behaviour is made up of many factors. There are certain structures in
communities that are more likely to "produce" people with criminal tendencies.
These should be changed.  I would guess that upbringing is the biggest. In
some systems people who are rich to begin with have the chances and the poor
don't or at least are in a considerably worse situation to begin with.
Education is probably one of the deciding factors and it's is usually tied to
wealth. In the nordic countries the educational system considers most people
equal to begin with and that is one of the biggest reasons I like living here.
At least everyone has an almost equal chance.

Timo
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B803EF.2D55@ieee.org>
Timo Tossavainen wrote:
> 
> Erik Naggum wrote a surprisingly mild reply:
> 
> > * Timo Tossavainen <··@cs.uta.fi>
> > | One must first wonder what is wrong with the system that produces these
> > | kinds of people that commit the crimes.
> >
> >   what's wrong is thinking that political systems produce any kind of
> >   people.  "societies don't produce people.  people produce people."
> 
> Of course you are right, but the society has a profound impact on the people
> that produce people; we are social animals. By system I meant the whole
> thing: family, education, work, etc... not a political system, which is only 
> a part of it.
> 
> >   requiring people to compete  with others in terms of being the most needy
> > is a really, truly horrible
> >
> 
> Who ever said that welfare should be unconditional ? There is a lot of work 
> to do and I don't see a reason why people who are on welfare couldn't do a little
> work for their income. I don't like freeriders any more than you do, but
> they're not the reason why we shouldn't help people that are temporarily in a
> bad situation. I'm not qualified to make suggestions for these systems, but I
> firmly believe that there are better alternatives than the ones used now.

I'm not qualified either, but as long as we're into the off-topic silly
season, I observe and suggest anyway.

A problem with need-based welfare is that one gets no assistance until
all personal resources are exhausted. Then, although we provide
maintenance, the means for recovery - car, enough money to stock up on
bargains, a cushion for emergency medical care, etc., are gone. So even
those who have not absorbed a "culture of poverty" become effectively
trapped in that mode.

We might provide emergency assistance to tide people over temporary bad
times, and dormatory housing and communal dining rooms fot those who
can't pull themselves out within a reasonable time. 
> 
> One other minor factor is that at least in the IT business people have to 
> work overtime and everything is very much efficiency oriented; people burn 
> sometimes just snap. I think there was such a case in the US just a few days
> out and ago. Everything is about competition and therefore extremely 
> stressful. People don't give a fsck about working hours when they have to 
> compete with each other in productivity.
> 
> >   my take on it is that people who are allowed to think that they can
> >   _demand_ that others keep them alive and well start to think they are
> >   _deprived_ of it if others don't actually keep them alive and well, and
> >   such attitudes may well lead to criminal behavior as it already ignores
> >   the rights and needs of those who are required to care for them with
> >   nothing tangible in return, not even a thank-you.
> >
> 
> Criminal behaviour is made up of many factors. There are certain structures in
> communities that are more likely to "produce" people with criminal tendencies.
> These should be changed.  I would guess that upbringing is the biggest. In
> some systems people who are rich to begin with have the chances and the poor
> don't or at least are in a considerably worse situation to begin with.
> Education is probably one of the deciding factors and it's is usually tied to
> wealth. In the nordic countries the educational system considers most people
> equal to begin with and that is one of the biggest reasons I like living here.
> At least everyone has an almost equal chance.
> 
> Timo

-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Breton
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3g11n4cmc.fsf@world.std.com>
··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu, who apparently recently switched to gnus,
writes: 

> Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > > 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.

No, the road to civilization is (in part) having an honest, competent
court system, lack of which makes the death penalty too big a threat
to non-criminals.  None of which has anything to do with Lisp or Forth.

Followups to anywhere but here.

-- 
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Ugh-free Spelling (no "gh") http://world.std.com/~tob/ugh-free.html
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408992106420001@ppp020-max03.twics.com>
> Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence, head.
> The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Would you think of this as civilised if
you read it in a history book ? The Sumerians had a law by which a
surgeons hand was chopped off if his patient died in the process of
performing surgery, thus committing the offence of failure. Where is the
limit once we have gone over a certain "shocking" threshold ?

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B60002.F6B55F8@gmx.de>
··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu wrote:
> Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence, head.
> The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.

You mean people who chop off fingers, hands, and heads? Reminds me of
the execution of Stoertebecker (famous pirate) in Hamburg. The executer
was quite happy about chopping off the heads, so the senate was worried.
The senate decided to have him executed, too. The second executer
chopped of the head of the first one with a smile. One senator laid his
own hands on the second executer and afterwards killed himself.

Remember: there is no right way to do wrong things.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Ken Deboy
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37CE1ABE.35C7D8D5@alternavision.com>
Bernd Paysan wrote:

> You mean people who chop off fingers, hands, and heads? Reminds me of
> the execution of Stoertebecker (famous pirate) in Hamburg. The executer
> was quite happy about chopping off the heads, so the senate was worried.
> The senate decided to have him executed, too. The second executer
> chopped of the head of the first one with a smile. One senator laid his
> own hands on the second executer and afterwards killed himself.
>
> Remember: there is no right way to do wrong things.

Gee, it's also wrong to keep someone locked up against their will, so
perhaps crime should go completely unpunished...? I have no pity on
people who get the death penalty - the crimes they commit to receive
such a sentence are hideous. I'm not happy that they die for their crime,
but I am truly relieved that they are permanently stopped from ever
hurting another innocent victim.

Ken
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7emghlcuw.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:35:43 -0700, 
"Ken" == Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com> writes:

Ken> I'm not happy that they die for their crime, but I am truly relieved
Ken> that they are permanently stopped from ever hurting another innocent
Ken> victim.

Here we go again: 

killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is a big
deal for society because the real culprit is

 1) still free
 2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
 3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
 4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the suspect?

All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real criminal,
(in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.

This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane, it's just
plain logic.

Sorry for keeping this way off topic thread itself alive ... but I'm
unwilling to give it the death penalty ...

                                                                      Philip

-- 
The cause of the millenium bug is Homo Sapiens having 10 fingers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Andy Freeman
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <7qm3ec$jhe$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <··············@ebi.ac.uk> Philip Lijnzaad
<········@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
> killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is
a big
> deal for society because the real culprit is
>
>  1) still free
>  2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
>  3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
>  4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
suspect?
>
> All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real
criminal,
> (in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.
>
> This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane,
it's just
> plain logic.

Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
all punishments.

Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
than by being wrongfully executed.  (Prisons are not healthy places,
lots more people are imprisoned than executed, and death penalty
cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)

Consequence - when someone focuses on the smallest part of the
problem, you know something about them or their real objection ....
Interestingly enough, you can safely make the same conclusions
when you see an argument which attributes a strawman or evil to
someone else.  The above demonstrates both characteristics.

-andy


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7vh9t8eek.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
> In article <··············@ebi.ac.uk> Philip Lijnzaad
> <········@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
>> killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is
> a big
>> deal for society because the real culprit is
>> 
>> 1) still free
>> 2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
>> 3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
>> 4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
> suspect?
>> 
>> All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real
> criminal,
>> (in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.
>> 
>> This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane,
> it's just
>> plain logic.

> Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
> all punishments.

clearly, point 4) does no apply to the death penalty, that is the whole
point.

> Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
> than by being wrongfully executed.  

Can you provide any references to back up this claim?

> (Prisons are not healthy places,
> lots more people are imprisoned than executed, and death penalty

You seem to be arguing that it's OK to kill innocent victims 'for their own
good'. 

> cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)

'far more effective' meaning? 

> Consequence - when someone 

me, I suppose?

> focuses on the smallest part of the problem,

being? 

> you know something about them 

such as?

> or their real objection ....

being?

> Interestingly enough, you can safely make the same conclusions
> when you see an argument which attributes a strawman or evil to
> someone else.  The above demonstrates both characteristics.

you speak in mysteries. I merely pointed out a logical error in the thought
that the death penalty results in a safer society. 

In addition, but this was not in my original post, I am strongly opposed to
the death penalty on humanitarian grounds. 

                                                                      Philip
-- 
The cause of the millenium bug is Homo Sapiens having 10 fingers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Andy Freeman
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <7qn1ap$asb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <··············@ebi.ac.uk> Philip Lijnzaad
<········@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> 1) still free
> >> 2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
> >> 3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
> >> 4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
> > suspect?
>
> > Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
> > all punishments.
>
> clearly, point 4) does no apply to the death penalty, that is the
whole
> point.

Philip's evil twin pointed out, correctly, that (4) does apply to
the death penalty.  I merely pointed out that the police usually
stop looking for the guilty after a conviction, no matter what the
sentence, that (4) isn't specific to the death penalty.  Does the
new improved Philip have an interpretation of (4) that is specific
to the death penalty, that does not apply to other punishments?

> > Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
> > than by being wrongfully executed.
>
> Can you provide any references to back up this claim?

I'll do better - I'll show how to derive the result.

Collect the number of people executed and the number of people
who died while serving "life without parole" sentences.  Now
ask yourself whether the number of innocents in the first group
is smaller or larger than the number in the second group.

For giggles, you might want to compare the rate at which
people given a death sentence manage to prove their innocence
with the rate at which the "life without parole" people
manage the same feat.  Yes, execution often stops the process,
but other things do as well.  See if you can figure out whether
the fraction of innocents in the "executed" group is larger
or smaller than the fraction of innocents in the "rot away"
group.

For advanced credit, compute the risks and costs for innocents
sentenced to something short of life without parole.  (These
people often die in prison, and they die at a much higher rate
than people "on the outside", or even on death row, before the
final walk of course.)

When you're done, you can compute the number of innocents
convicted today who will die in prison and see that most of
them will die outside death row+the death chamber.

> You seem to be arguing that it's OK to kill innocent victims 'for
their own good'.

Not at all.  I'm pointing out that the innocents argument doesn't
imply what you'd like it to imply, but thanks for repeating the
second fallacy (attribute strawmen or evil to others) in your
posting that I pointed out.

> > cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)
>
> 'far more effective' meaning?

Meaning that if you're an innocent sentenced to death, it's
far more likely that your sentence will be "changed in time"
than it is if you're given life without parole.  You may think
that an innocent can work for his release for decades, but
in practice, no one gives a damn about the "lifers", so they
just serve their time.

> > focuses on the smallest part of the problem,
>
> being?

When someone screams about death of innocents by execution, it's
either it's the "by execution" that really bothers them or something
else is going on.  (We know that because most of the innocents who
die aren't executed.)

For some reason, few admit to the "by execution" motivation but they
rarely offer an alternative explanation.  Of course, that lack doesn't
imply that there isn't an alternative, just that one doesn't come out
in discussion, but I'm still hopeful.

-andy


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37CEA805.4683@ieee.org>
Andy Freeman wrote:
> 
> In article <··············@ebi.ac.uk> Philip Lijnzaad
> <········@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
> > killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is
> a big
> > deal for society because the real culprit is
> >
> >  1) still free
> >  2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
> >  3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
> >  4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
> suspect?
> >
> > All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real
> criminal,
> > (in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.
> >
> > This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane,
> it's just
> > plain logic.
> 
> Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
> all punishments.
> 
> Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
> than by being wrongfully executed.  (Prisons are not healthy places,
> lots more people are imprisoned than executed, and death penalty
> cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)
> 
> Consequence - when someone focuses on the smallest part of the
> problem, you know something about them or their real objection ....
> Interestingly enough, you can safely make the same conclusions
> when you see an argument which attributes a strawman or evil to
> someone else.  The above demonstrates both characteristics.
> 
> -andy
> 
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

You miss the point: imprisonment is reversable; execution is not.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7stbab.pbj.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 12:38:29 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
>Andy Freeman wrote:

>> Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
>> all punishments.

>> Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
>> than by being wrongfully executed.  (Prisons are not healthy places,

>You miss the point: imprisonment is reversable; execution is not.

I think you missed his point: nothing is reversible.  Forcing anyone to do
anything is punishment; death is not a special case.

I personally think we should imprison a lot fewer people -- and make more
endure caning.  It's certainly less intrusive than imprisonment.

I guess I've just given in to the debate, because I said I wouldn't post.
Oh well.

>Jerry

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Andy Freeman
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <7qmtv6$8f1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <·············@ieee.org> ·······@erols.com wrote:
> You miss the point: imprisonment is reversable; execution is not.

Death "while imprisoned" is just as irreversable as execution,
and more innocents die of the former than the latter.

BTW - I would like to hear more about "reversable" imprisonment.
Can it only be used to give someone back time wrongfully spent in
jail, or can it be used to recover time "wasted" in other ways?  Or,
perhaps was it simply a mis-statement, a hyperbolic way of saying
that being killed is worse than wasting several years in jail.

-andy


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37D18A29.31C244B3@gmx.de>
Ken Deboy wrote:
> Gee, it's also wrong to keep someone locked up against their will, so
> perhaps crime should go completely unpunished...?

Well, people who lock other people away should stay a significant time
of their live in prison then... hm, I expect, that's true (or where do
you think prisoner's guards work? ;-).

The other question is whether you should punish crimes with something
that is considered as a major crime, too. A further question is if
people who commit crimes are "normal", i.e. you can punish them, because
they did what they did by their free will, or if they are not normal,
thus you can't punish them, because they did what they did because they
are ill. The third possible option is that they were normal when they
did the crime, but are ill now (just as Vietnam veterans often have
major psychological problems because of the things they had seen and had
to do). Locking them away (or killing them) means the society just can't
handle (or doesn't want to) these diseases. If one thinks of criminals
as people with psychologic diseases, killing them means euthanasy. If
criminals are not psychologically ill, why do you need them to lock
away? Better let them pay for their victims (e.g. the live injuries, the
pension for their widows etc.); as normal people, they would quickly see
that killing doesn't get them where they want.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwzozqzuxb.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
Jan Egil Hagen <·····@nntp.ifi.uio.no> writes:

> [··@nanostructure.utdallas.edu]
> 
> | Why is Manson still alive?
> 
> Because in 1972, the California Supreme Court declared that the death
> penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment and thus in violation of
> the state constitution.  107 inmates were taken off death row and
> resentenced.  Manson was among them.
> 
> California has since reinstated the death penalty.
> 
> JEH - who thinks people like you are thousands of times more dangerous
>       than Manson ever was.

You mean Marilyn Manson?


-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Bart Lateur
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b95df7.491139@news.skynet.be>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:

>> | Why is Manson still alive?

>You mean Marilyn Manson?

No: Charles Manson. Marilyn Manson is completely harmless in comparison.

	Bart.
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwemh2mqob.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
···········@skynet.be (Bart Lateur) writes:

> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> 
> >> | Why is Manson still alive?
> 
> >You mean Marilyn Manson?
> 
> No: Charles Manson. Marilyn Manson is completely harmless in comparison.

Are you sure? :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Charles R Martin
Subject: Re: Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B97FFD.73396027@iglobal.net>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> 
> ···········@skynet.be (Bart Lateur) writes:
> 
> > Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> >
> > >> | Why is Manson still alive?
> >
> > >You mean Marilyn Manson?
> >
> > No: Charles Manson. Marilyn Manson is completely harmless in comparison.
> 
> Are you sure? :)

Yes.  SHIRLEY Manson, now, could be real trouble.

-- 
The strongest human instinct is to impart information, the
second is to resist it. --Kenneth Grahame
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <UdXs3.45177$5r2.83577@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>
In article <·············@nanostructure.utdallas.edu>,
	··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU writes:
> ..
> 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 raped 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)

> 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 violent tendencies?

>> 
>> 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.

> 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
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408990425210001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
In article <·····················@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
··@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) wrote:

> 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.

A system like that was actually prctised by the Scythians an ancient
nomadic group of people populating the steppes of central Asia. If someone
was accused of treason a soothsayer was consulted and if the soothsayer
decided he was guilty and someone disputed then other (I think five)
soothsayers were consulted. If they did not confirm then the first
soothsayer was killed.

Don't know how successful the scheme was, though.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Gary Chanson
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <S10t3.32$mV.8897@news.shore.net>
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote in message
·····································@ppp037-max03.twics.com...
>
> A system like that was actually prctised by the Scythians an ancient
> nomadic group of people populating the steppes of central Asia. If someone
> was accused of treason a soothsayer was consulted and if the soothsayer
> decided he was guilty and someone disputed then other (I think five)
> soothsayers were consulted. If they did not confirm then the first
> soothsayer was killed.
>
> Don't know how successful the scheme was, though.

        You tend to use up a lot of soothsayers that way, which is a strong
argument in its favor.

--

-GJC
·········@shore.net
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408992028380001@ppp020-max03.twics.com>
> > Don't know how successful the scheme was, though.
> 
>         You tend to use up a lot of soothsayers that way, which is a strong
> argument in its favor.

only if they are bad soothsayers (more likely to disagree with each other)...
;-)

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B6C86F.33AF@ieee.org>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > > Don't know how successful the scheme was, though.
> >
> >         You tend to use up a lot of soothsayers that way, which is a strong
> > argument in its favor.
> 
> only if they are bad soothsayers (more likely to disagree with each other)...
> ;-)
> 
> --
> As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
> Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.

 ... "Truth has the miraculous quality of being consistent with itself."

                                       Walter Stuart of the N.I.H.

And maybe they had a Sythian Soothsayer's Association like the American
Medical Association. Then they would have had no worry.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B62D5D.2694@ieee.org>
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> 
  ...
> 
> 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 think I could
> live with that.
> 
  ...
> --
> 
> Hartmann Schaffer
> 
> It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days

How is this proposal for minimizing the number of those wrongly
convicted? Make the penalties for attempted and successful crimes the
same. After all, if someone deliberately shoots me in the chest, his
penalty ought not depend on whether I live or die. If the gun misfires,
that should be my good fortune, but not his.

When a prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence, (s)he is trying to
kill a possibly innocent person; a capital offense.  When a prisecutor
induces a witness to give perjured incriminating evidence, they are both
culpable. At a minimum, the penalty for this kind of perjury should be
what the defendant might have received if convicted. Any instance of
evidence tampering by the prosecution should be automatic ground for
acquittal. (I think that's what the jury decided in the O. J. Simpson
case. It certainly explains the verdict.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <TeMs3.6616$gO1.175350@news2.giganews.com>
On 12 Aug 1999 12:36:00 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU
<··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU> wrote: 
>Locking someone up for life is a waste of taxpayer money

The notion that a death penalty costs $0.25 for a couple of rounds of
ammunition or $5 for a piece of rope (or ... or ...) just isn't
representative of reality.

"Simply" locking up someone "for life" may in fact be *less* of a
waste of taxpayer money than pursuing a death sentence, with the
manifold sets of appeals and the pretty vast array of legal machinery
that tends to come into play.

That should not be interpreted to indicate that any of the
alternatives are "cheap;" there simply aren't *any* that are
economically cheap.

--> In a legal system with lots of appeals, anything nearing "death
    penalty" as a measure will involve *hefty* legal costs regardless
    of the outcome.

--> In a society with a legal system that eschews unimportant things
    like appeals or "looking at matters carefully," while it may
    become cheaper to execute people, the side-effect of "Oops - he
    wasn't guilty - Too Late!" costs a lot, and cheapens life in the
    society as a whole.

My tendancy would be to favor the death penalty for a small set of
Real Serious crimes, but if there are going to be vast costs
associated with running the appeals system, it makes it far less clear
that it is economically sensible.

And if it takes years to accomplish the death penalty, that is
anything but quick justice, which denies one of the purported
advantages.

No good answers to this...

<sometimes randomly selected .signatures are just *too* appropriate...>
-- 
Rules of the Evil Overlord #65. " If one of my dungeon guards begins
expressing concern over the conditions in the beautiful princess'
cell, I will immediately transfer him to a less people-oriented
position." 
········@ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b355da.314069@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:46:40 GMT, ··@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann
Schaffer) wrote:

>Even though this is off topicm this subject is too interesting:

>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.  

	The connection to forth being RAD: program twice and throw the
first away (which you can't do if you burn the first in the chai...
uhmm EPROM)?




(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B4D26C.7B1B@ieee.org>
··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
> 
[thoughtful comment of previous poster snipped]
> 
> I agree with most of your article; religion in general and Chrisianity
> in particular is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind.  I
> have to point out, though, that even though I am not a Christian or
> any other type of religionist, I do firmly believe in the death
> penalty for incorrigible criminals.  This is not due to any desire for
> vengeance, punishment, or revenge, but simply because it is the only
> reliable, effective way to keep them from doing it again.  In other
> words, it is societal self-defense.  Some people will never get
> better, and it is a disservice to society, to the taxpayers, to the
> families of those they have hurt, and to the criminals themselves to
> keep them locked up for life.  Better to just kill them and get it
> over with.

The problem with this theoretical argument is that, as a practical
matter, innocent people are convicted in large numbers. (Some
authorities estimate more than two percent.) There is no reason to
believe that the few who are eventually exonerated represent more than a
small fraction of the whole, and almost exclusively involve those still
alive. (If execution has already taken place, there is little reason to
take the trouble to collect new evidence.)
> 
> Another example of how Chrisitanity has twisted things around: the
> Christians consider assassination to be evil; they prefer to kill
> thousands of patriotic young men and innocent civilians on both sides
> just to somehow send The Bad Guy a message, rather than just sending
> in an elite team of hatchetmen to take him out.  I personally find
> warfare to be much more distasteful than assassination (though in some
> cases war is a necessity; sometimes you can't easily solve a problem
> just by taking out one or a few key Bad Guys).  Obvious sociopaths
> such as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovich, Pope John Paul, Pat
> Robertson, Bill Gates and Larry Wall should not be tolerated; we
> should expunge them as soon as they make themselves noticed by their
> egregious disregard for humanity.

Shall we appoint you to decide who ought to be assassinated? If not you,
then who?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Stig Hemmer
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ekvn1vumwp1.fsf@ks.pvv.ntnu.no>
Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> writes:
> ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
> > Another example of how Chrisitanity has twisted things around: the
> > Christians consider assassination to be evil; they prefer to kill
> > thousands of patriotic young men and innocent civilians on both sides
[...]
> Shall we appoint you to decide who ought to be assassinated? If not you,
> then who?

Well, obviously, the people who today have the power to declare war.

The point is: Declaring war shouldn't be an easy act, but once war is
declared, assassination should be considered a valid strategy.

Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.
From: Christopher B. Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7rb4n3.l4m.cbbrowne@knuth.brownes.org>
On 14 Aug 1999 13:24:42 +0200, Stig Hemmer <····@pvv.ntnu.no> posted:
>Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> writes:
>> ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
>>> Another example of how Chrisitanity has twisted things around: the
>>> Christians consider assassination to be evil; they prefer to kill
>>> thousands of patriotic young men and innocent civilians on both sides
>[...]
>> Shall we appoint you to decide who ought to be assassinated? If not you,
>> then who?
>
>Well, obviously, the people who today have the power to declare war.
>
>The point is: Declaring war shouldn't be an easy act, but once war is
>declared, assassination should be considered a valid strategy.

Are you thinking about the old "Divine Right of Kings" here?

That's been dead for hundreds of years, and it is very reasonable to
consider that it came into existence as a self-serving strategy of
"royalty" whose purpose continues to this day.

Consider:  

   Who makes the decision that assassination will become the national
   strategy?   Hmmm... The national leader.

   What is the result of such a strategy?   Hmmm...  Open season on
   national leaders.

It would take a pretty dumb national leader to approve of
assassination as a tool of international politics; that leader
immediately gets a big sign painted on their back labelled "Go ahead -
assassinate me!"

The connection between this and:
a) Christianity, and
b) Death penalties,
is exceedingly tenuous.
-- 
A student, in hopes of understanding the Lambda-nature, came to Greenblatt.
As they spoke a Multics system hacker walked by.  "Is it true", asked the
student, "that PL-1 has many of the same data types as Lisp?"  Almost before
the student had finished his question, Greenblatt shouted, "FOO!", and hit
the student with a stick.
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1508990150330001@ppp017-max03.twics.com>
> It would take a pretty dumb national leader to approve of
> assassination as a tool of international politics; that leader
> immediately gets a big sign painted on their back labelled "Go ahead -
> assassinate me!"
> 
> The connection between this and:
> a) Christianity, and
> b) Death penalties,
> is exceedingly tenuous.

No doubt about that, but we almost made a full turn and are now heading
again for the not so distant vicinity of the original topic: Lisp *dying*
;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Tom Zimmer
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B34118.B377197@tmqaustin.com>
Hello Erik,

I hope I'm not butting in here where I shouldn't, but I have some responses
to your posting.

Erik Naggum wrote:

> * Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com>
> | You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
> | to justify their evil ways.
>
>   I'm interested in a simple, straight-forward way to keep the two apart,
>   for it seems to me that religions are the best vehicles to further evil:

I don't disagree here.  Many people have done bad things in the name of
religion.


>
>   those who act out of a belief without doubt will also not stop acting
>   when people who had retained the capacity to doubt would have stopped.

Well, as a Christian, I have learned that God gave me a brain, and He
expects me to use it.  I have the Bible, which tells me how to use it, and
it doesn't justify evil.  I don't think Being a Christian has effected my
ability
to doubt, I just don't doubt God. And even if I did, or do doubt God
from time to time, that doesn't effect my salvation, since it doesn't hinge
on my ability to not doubt God without fail.  Salvation is a gift, that once
it has been (genuinely) received, cannot be lost.


>
>   to remain a good person while being Christian is a lot harder than to
>   remain a good person without religious beliefs

I agree here too.  Since the Bible tells me to compare myself to God,
in determining my perfection, it is in fact impossible to be good in
God's eyes.  Except for the fact that Christ's blood covers my sin,
and as such God doesn't see it.  A simple analogy, is, its like when a child
does bad things, the parent corrects the child for the bad things, but still
loves
the child, no matter how bad the child has been.  Of course a person without
a religion, is like a child with no parent.  There really is no reason to be
good.  The child him or her self in effect becomes god.  I kind of wonder
where you get the idea that a person with no religious beliefs should want
to be good.  As far as I know, all concept of trying to be good, comes
from one religion or another.


> -- there's no one you can
>   ask forgiveness or to take responsiblity for your actions, there's no
>   illusion of a greater purpose that defends acts of evil and destruction
>   (like bombing abortion clinics or killing believers in other religions)
>   or to fill the void of a meaningless, wasted life, and there's no way you
>   can avoid being responsible for your own actions.  without a forgiving
>   "God", your only reference is HUMAN RIGHTS, and they cannot be forfeited
>   or reneged because some "God" told you to.

Yes, it is certainly true that many people have done bad things in the name of
religion, and Christianity.  That doesn't excuse them, and they are still
subject
to mans law and punishment for such acts, even if they happen to be
Christians.  You see, while it is possible for God to forgive you for committing

sin, there are still consequences for sin.  When Christ died for my sin, he
paid the penalty for my sin with God, that is I am forgiven by God.  In the
world however, I must still pay for my sin under man's law.  If the
penalty for my sin is death, then I must still pay it, even if I am forgiven
by God.


> there's no hope at all of
>   somehow making up for your evil deeds by a prayer or a silly conversion
>   to a religious belief: you have to be aware of what you do and why.  a
>   Christian can do evil, stupid things and just cry and ask forgiveness
>   over and over again.  non-believers can't do that: they have to _think_.
>   this is hard, too, but it's much harder to be good when you _don't_ think.

Well, it is true that Christians continue to sin while they are in this life,
since
we are born sinners, we can do nothing else, no matter how hard we try.
The advantage a Christian has, is that as you say, they can ask for
forgiveness, and have confidence that in the next life, their sin will have
already been paid for.  The non Christian can't do that, since they have
no God to pray to.  Also as you say, the non-believer has to think, and
try to do good, If they believe they need to.  The problem is, That as
a CHristian, I believe there is a god, and if I wasn't forgiven for my sins,
then I would go to hell, since a person who is or isn't a believer cannot
really do good all the time.  Being born with a sin nature, pretty much
guarantees we will each sin.


>
>   still, I have the highest admiration for those who remain good people
>   despite being Christian: it shows real character to put yourself in the
>   midst of a deeply evil temptation that doesn't exist at all without the
>   unconditional forgiveness and _not_ abuse the ability to be forgiven for
>   everything you do or the ability to point to "God's will" to explain your
>   evil actions

It is certainly true that as a Christian, I am under much greater temptation to
sin
than non Christians, since Satan will spend all of his time trying to get me
to sin.  He has no reason to waste excess time on non-believers, since they
are already largely under his control.


> -- whether it's true or not does is irrelevant to victims
>   and perpetrator alike.  for a non-believer, the temptation doesn't exist:
>   you can't even blame "society" for your actions, anymore, although some
>   socialists tried to put society in God's place just that way.  it failed,
>   for good reason: there's a limit to other people's power to cause people
>   to act irrationally, quite contrary to the power of an omnipotent "God".

God certainly is omnipotent.  He can "do" anything that is consistent with
His character as revealed in the Bible.  And you are right, that government
cannot exert enough force on all the people all the time, to make any
country heaven on earth.  I find it interesting that you keep trying to say
that God makes people do irrational things.  I don't believe that.  People
certainly do irrational things, perhaps in the name of God, but that
doesn't mean God is making them do those things.  You see God's will
is revealed to us in the Bible, and it does not include any verses that
tell us to do irrational things.


>
>   on the other hand, people who think they are good _because_ they are
>   Christians are likely to commit unspeakable evils in the name of their
>   religion because they are no longer fully responsible for their actions:

I am a Christian, and I don't think I am good.  I know I am not, because I
compare myself with Jesus, who is God incarnate, and in that comparison,
I fall far short of being good.  In fact, it is not possible for me to be good
on my own at all.  All I can hope to do, is listen for God's prompting, and
hope to be sensitive enough to hear and obey when God speaks to me.
To you this probably sounds irrational, but when I get a feeling that I should
do something, I evaluate that feeling against what God teaches in His word
the Bible, and If it is in agreement with the Bible, then I can have confidence
that it is from God.  If it isn't, then I need to ignore it, because it is a
feeling
or thought that is coming from either my own willful, selfish, sinful mind,
or it is coming from somewhere even worse.

I already said above that I believe I am fully responsible for my actions.


>
>   they are somehow _exempt_ from normal ethical considerations.

I am not exempt form ethical considerations, God is ethical. It may not
always be possible to understand why God allows things to happen on
this earth, but God is completely consistent.


> _this_ is
>   why Christianity is bad per se -- no person should ever even have the
>   _opportunity_ to find an excuse for not being responsible for his own
>   actions.  the only thing that keeps Christians from being bad is that
>   they were good people to start with; since most people are good to begin
>   with, it seems there are more good Christians than bad: the interesting
>   measure is that there is a far higher ratio of bad people to good within
>   Christianity than without, not the least because our society accepts any
>   murderer or violent criminal who "repents" -- a fat lot of good _that_
>   does for the victim and his family!  good people don't need religions,
>   but it also doesn't harm them, it just makes it a little harder to remain
>   good.  bad people need religions in order to pretend to be good, as most
>   people have a very deep psychological need to feel they are good people.
>   Christianity is bad because it gives bad people the ability to believe
>   they are good even when that is not the case at all.

Interesting perspective.  Since I already said I don't think I am good, I guess
I already answered that part.  As for bad people needing religion to pretend to
be good, well, there are I am sure bad people pretending to be good, but you
can't fool God, since He knows "what is in a man's heart".  If I pretend to
be good, then I am wasting my time.


>
>   moreover, Christianity is bad because it _requires_ good people to cover
>   for the bad people among them.  this is shared with all of the violent
>   religions, including Islam.  it is also shared with Communism, which
>   keeps the belief that the ideology is clean and good, practitioners not.
>   if you are always willing to remove a factor when something goes wrong,
>   you will never understand what the real causes are, and nothing helps
>   prevent such understanding better than an undoubtable belief that the
>   ideology or theology is above reproach by definition: it leads to a hunt
>   for scapegoats, too.  (the very concept of a scapegoat is evil, and it is
>   no surprise at all that it was invented by a religion: if _you_ aren't
>   good, at least you can sacrifice someone else to make up for it.)

I confess I am having trouble following you here.  As a Christian, I don't
believe I am required to cover-up for bad people.  In fact, the Bible
teaches that Christians are to correct fellow Christians when they see
they are in error.

I don't know where scapegoat came from, but if you are relating it
to Christ, then surely you know that Jesus gave Himself willingly.  It
is true that He asked God to take away the burden, but when God
did not, then Jesus gave his life without resistance.


>
>   the incredibly destructive belief that the spirit is somehow good when
>   the flesh is evil can also be created only in athmosphere of religion.
>   if you don't have a religious belief, the force of imagination necessary
>   to sever the two from eachother cannot arise.  what none of these belief
>   systems understand is that some people are bad only when they can find an
>   excuse, and they find it in the "spirit".

I actually agree with you here, but the spirit you are talking about is from the

evil one, not from the Holy Spirit. Again, I don't believe my spirit is good
at all, it is just forgiven.


> however, when they can't find
>   any, they just won't do the bad things.  to some people, jealousy, rage,
>   alcohol, etc, provide temporary excuses, but no excuse is as permanent as
>   the imaginary forgiveness of an omnipotent God, and no force is stronger
>   than that which keeps people believing in that which keeps them from
>   realizing they are truly bad people.  in this sense, Christianity _needs_
>   for people to sin in order to forgive them and thus keep them hostage,
>   and what better way to ensure that they cannot leave Christianity and the
>   forgiveness of their "loving" God by reminding every child and every
>   believer that they are _all_ sinners?

Let me ask you a question.  If you were God, and as a non Christian,
you might as well be.  Do you always do what is right?  Are you always
happy with what you do?  Is there ever a time when you say to yourself,
"why did I do or say that?"  or maybe you say to yourself,  "that was a stupid
thing to do".  So tell me God (that's you), why did you do or say those
things?  And, why do you even bother thinking thoughts that tell you
that you are less than perfect?  If we are each God, where did the concept
of imperfection come from .  If we have a concept of imperfection, then
it has to come from somewhere.  maybe it comes from the fact that there
really is a God, and we really are sinners.


>
>   (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.)
>
> #:Erik

Just my thoughts,

Tom Zimmer
From: ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <upv0s8ss2.fsf@nanostructure.utdallas.edu>
Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:

> Well, as a Christian, I have learned that God gave me a brain, and He
> expects me to use it.  I have the Bible, which tells me how to use it, and
> it doesn't justify evil. 

The problem is, is that even if there were a God, and even if the
Bible was literally his writing, word for word, its still up to us
mortals to interpret what it has to say.  Some people (like yourself,
I'm guessing) have a relatively quiescent interpretation, and are able
to lead relatively decent lives.  Unfortunately, there are many other
people (the majority, IMO) who have very different interpretations,
some of which are quite frightening.  But all of you guys, no matter
what kind of interpretation you have, have one thing in common: you
can self-righteously justify your behavior (whether that be feeding
the poor, blowing up abortion clinics, helping old ladies across the
road, tying homosexuals to fences and bludgeoning them with pistols,
offering shelters for homeless people, or simply just torturing and
killing heretics) by pointing to the Bible and saying that your
behavior is "God's Will".  So whatever kind of behavior you exhibit,
good or evil, any of it can be justified by picking up your handy
Bible and applying your favorite interpretation.

> the child, no matter how bad the child has been.  Of course a person without
> a religion, is like a child with no parent.  There really is no reason to be
> good.  The child him or her self in effect becomes god.  I kind of wonder
> where you get the idea that a person with no religious beliefs should want
> to be good.  As far as I know, all concept of trying to be good, comes
> from one religion or another.

No, the concept of trying to be good comes from people wanting to lead
the best life possible (and for other people to also have the best
life possible), and implementing that by behaving towards others in
the appropriate fashion, and hoping they reciprocate.

Religion just made that desire stronger by stating "You WILL be good
or you will suffer eternally."  So religious people, when they are
good, are good not because they are genuinely nice people, but because
they are scared.

Atheists, on the other hand, when they are good, are good because they
are genuinely nice people.  I have a lot more respect for that.  Not
that I succeed in being good all the time, but I try.

> It is certainly true that as a Christian, I am under much greater temptation to
> sin
> than non Christians, since Satan will spend all of his time trying to get me
> to sin.  He has no reason to waste excess time on non-believers, since they
> are already largely under his control.

I would much rather be in Christian Hell than in Christian Heaven,
where I would have to spend eternity with a bunch of self-righteous
scumbags that are all fauning over His Holiness.  Luckily, though, I
won't be going to either place. 

And no, I'm not a minion of Satan.  Satanists are just Christians that
have decided to be on the side of "evil" rather than the side of
"good".  Its still just as silly.

> country heaven on earth.  I find it interesting that you keep trying to say
> that God makes people do irrational things.  I don't believe that.  People
> certainly do irrational things, perhaps in the name of God, but that
> doesn't mean God is making them do those things.  You see God's will
> is revealed to us in the Bible, and it does not include any verses that
> tell us to do irrational things.

Well, obviously since God does not exist, he couldn't possibly be
making them do those things.  But in their twisted minds, they *think*
God wants them to do those things, and with their interpretation of
the Bible, they have "proof" that they are following "God's Will".
You can use the Bible to justify *anything*, given an appropriate set
of interpretations--and people have, for centuries.

> >   on the other hand, people who think they are good _because_ they are
> >   Christians are likely to commit unspeakable evils in the name of their
> >   religion because they are no longer fully responsible for their actions:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ listen to Erik, he knows whats up.

> I am a Christian, and I don't think I am good.  I know I am not, because I
> compare myself with Jesus, who is God incarnate, and in that comparison,
> I fall far short of being good.  In fact, it is not possible for me to be good
> on my own at all.  All I can hope to do, is listen for God's prompting, and
> hope to be sensitive enough to hear and obey when God speaks to me.
> To you this probably sounds irrational, but when I get a feeling that I should
> do something, I evaluate that feeling against what God teaches in His word
> the Bible, and If it is in agreement with the Bible, then I can have confidence
> that it is from God.  If it isn't, then I need to ignore it, because it is a
> feeling
> or thought that is coming from either my own willful, selfish, sinful mind,
> or it is coming from somewhere even worse.

Well, the rest of mankind is lucky that you do not have a twisted
outlook on life.  You need to realize that some of the worst
sociopaths we have ever encountered would probably have said the exact
same thing that you have said, in the above paragraph.

> I am not exempt form ethical considerations, God is ethical. It may not
> always be possible to understand why God allows things to happen on
> this earth, but God is completely consistent.

Oh yeah, sending bears to maul little kids because they were laughing
at one of his holy men.  Real ethical.  God is such a nice guy; no
wonder there are so many Christians.

> Let me ask you a question.  If you were God, and as a non Christian,
> you might as well be.  Do you always do what is right?  Are you always
> happy with what you do?  Is there ever a time when you say to yourself,
> "why did I do or say that?"  or maybe you say to yourself,  "that was a stupid
> thing to do".  So tell me God (that's you), why did you do or say those
> things?  And, why do you even bother thinking thoughts that tell you
> that you are less than perfect?  If we are each God, where did the concept
> of imperfection come from .  If we have a concept of imperfection, then
> it has to come from somewhere.  maybe it comes from the fact that there
> really is a God, and we really are sinners.

Actually, we *are* each god, in the sense that we are each the highest
power in our own lives.  But that doesn't mean we are perfect or
immortal or supernatural or any of that other mumbo-jumbo; simply that
we cannot "pass the buck" and fail to be responsible.  We each hold
the final, ultimate responsibility for our lives, and we have noone to
answer to but ourselves, in the end.  You are god too; even though you
attempt to subscribe to a Higher Power, you are deluding yourself.
There is no God, but there are billions of gods.

The concept of imperfection comes from comparison with perfection.
There are many cases of perfection to reason about without resorting
to fairy tales about super-beings.  Think about the circle.  We can
reason all day long about perfect circles--for mathematically there is
such a thing--and we can compare it to all the imperfect circles we
see in the real world.  Similarly, we can see all the imperfection in
humans, and daydream about a "perfect person" (God), but unfortunately
there isn't any such thing.

"'Sin' is causing unnecessary harm to other people.  Harming
yourself is not sinful, just stupid." - Robert A. Heinlein

I don't think we are all sinners; but if Christians want to feel like
they are sinners, I won't argue: Christians have been the cause of
most of the darkest moments in our history, and have caused more harm
to human civilization in general than anything else.  *Every* page of
your Christian heritage is written in blood.

END OF LINE
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r6nvi.9aq.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
>Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:

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
From: Tom Zimmer
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B42A7A.338D6E25@tmqaustin.com>
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

William Tanksley wrote:

> On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
> >Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:
>
> 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
From: Bill Zimmerly
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <Tn_t3.139$yz.2011@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
No need to apologize, Tom.

Some falsehoods need to answered with the truth, no matter how off-topic it
may be.

Well done.

- Bill
http://www.zimmerly.com ···········@zimmerly.com
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither
were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things." - Romans 1:20-23

Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> wrote in message
······················@tmqaustin.com...
> 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
>
> William Tanksley wrote:
>
> > On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
> > >Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:
> >
> > 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
>
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7rh1ht.udq.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:19:57 -0500, Bill Zimmerly wrote:
>No need to apologize, Tom.

Agreed.  I'm glad he saw the need to do so, though; it confirms his
politeness.

>Some falsehoods need to answered with the truth, no matter how off-topic it
>may be.

More importantly, a polite defence is always an appropriate response to an
attack (even leaving aside issues of known truth for the sake of argument).

My response was not to Zimmer's defence, but to "df"'s repeated attack.
He didn't even bother responding to the defence, but merely repeated his
attack.  If the thread's off topic, and you have nothing new to add, leave
it be.

>- Bill

>> Hello William,

>> I apologize for being so far off topic, and for the cross posting.  That
>> > On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
>> > >Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:

>> > Yeesh.  This junk is SO far off topic it's sick.  Can it, okay?  This

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p25lv$j9q$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
········@dolphin.openprojects.net  writes:
> On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
> >Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:
> 
> 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

Right on! The only religious topics allowed here concern our mutual one
(i.e. the Forth).


-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b4cdad.614627@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On 13 Aug 1999 22:19:43 GMT, ···@node5.unix.Virginia.EDU (Julian V.
Noble) wrote:

>········@dolphin.openprojects.net  writes:
>> On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
>> >Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:
>> 
>> 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
>
>Right on! The only religious topics allowed here concern our mutual one
>(i.e. the Forth).

	Or non-mutual ones, like Blocks versus files?

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <0fMs3.6622$gO1.175350@news2.giganews.com>
On 12 Aug 1999 18:48:29 -0500, ··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU
<··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU> wrote: 
>Tom Zimmer <·······@tmqaustin.com> writes:
>
>> Well, as a Christian, I have learned that God gave me a brain, and He
>> expects me to use it.  I have the Bible, which tells me how to use it, and
>> it doesn't justify evil. 
>
>The problem is, is that even if there were a God, and even if the
>Bible was literally his writing, word for word, its still up to us
>mortals to interpret what it has to say.  Some people (like yourself,
>I'm guessing) have a relatively quiescent interpretation, and are able
>to lead relatively decent lives.  Unfortunately, there are many other
>people (the majority, IMO) who have very different interpretations,
>some of which are quite frightening.  But all of you guys, no matter
>what kind of interpretation you have, have one thing in common: you
>can self-righteously justify your behavior (whether that be feeding
>the poor, blowing up abortion clinics, helping old ladies across the
>road, tying homosexuals to fences and bludgeoning them with pistols,
>offering shelters for homeless people, or simply just torturing and
>killing heretics) by pointing to the Bible and saying that your
>behavior is "God's Will".  So whatever kind of behavior you exhibit,
>good or evil, any of it can be justified by picking up your handy
>Bible and applying your favorite interpretation.

Entertainingly enough:

"All you guys, no matter what kind of interpretation you have, have
one thing in common: You can self-righteously justify your lumping of
all sorts of people, including murderous criminals, loathsome thugs,
and others innocent of such characterization, all into one group."

The fact is that your interpretation of the characterization of the
categorization is arbitrary, every bit as much as the arbitrariness
that you project on others' interpretations.

If I were to suggest that it is legitimate to characterize all people
from the Middle East as "rag-headed terrorists" based on the fact that
the billion or so people in that region include some Rather Nasty
Thugs, I would be rightly lambasted for projecting the evils of a few
on the entire population.

But you apparently consider it Fair Enough for you to make the same
sorts of projections.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B5F846.4F6D@ieee.org>
··@NANOSTRUCTURE.UTDALLAS.EDU wrote:
> 
[all snipped]

I resisted the temptation to respond line for line. Here's a summary:

Good people will be so regardless of religion, and if religion makes
some people good out of fear, that's a bonus. Evil people will find ways
to justify their evil. Religion isn't necessary, other dogmas will do,
and some need no rationalization at all. 

It makes no sense to me to attack religion in general. It seems to me
that a proselytizing atheist is trying to convince himself.

There are harmful dogmas, and some of them are religious in origin. That
has little influence on how to group them.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Sashank Varma
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <sashank-1308991402540001@129.59.212.53>
this is clearly a no-win thread, but i find myself sucked in nonetheless...

background: i was raised a non-practicing hindu (too much science at an
early age rendered me agnostic for my first two decades) but have "come
around" a bit in my twenties.  i'm married to a protestant woman and
attend church and adult sunday school regularly with her.  i go to learn
more about her faith, to inform my faith, and mostly because the pastor
and sunday school teachers strike me as uncommonly wise people.

In article <················@tmqaustin.com>, ·······@tmqaustin.com wrote:

>It is certainly true that as a Christian, I am under much greater temptation to
>sin
>than non Christians, since Satan will spend all of his time trying to get me
>to sin.  He has no reason to waste excess time on non-believers, since they
>are already largely under his control.

you may wish to entertain the thought that perhaps everything you believe
is true and will lead you to a maximal life, but that there are other
paths to god (or the gods) that differ from your's, equally valid though
in no way diminishing your faith.

(as a side note, it always surprises me to learn what an active role
some christians believe the devil plays in their everyday lives, sort
of the peanut butter to the jellyish belief of some athletes that god
affects the outcomes of their competitions.)

>God certainly is omnipotent.  He can "do" anything that is consistent with
>His character as revealed in the Bible.

if god is omnipotent, then in what sense is god shackled by the bible,
assuming it can be unambiguously interpreted?  (this is a pedantic question,
i know.)

>Let me ask you a question.  If you were God, and as a non Christian,
>you might as well be.

the level of "godliness" in my friends and family, to the degree i can
perceive such a quality, does not appear to be a function of their
particular religion -- christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, none-at-
all, etc.

>Just my thoughts,
>
>Tom Zimmer

sashank
From: Philip Preston
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p2c57$b0g$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
Tom Zimmer wrote in message <················@tmqaustin.com>...

[snip]
>Just my thoughts,

Are you sure they are yours? They look suspiciously like dogma.

Philip.
From: Tom Zimmer
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B4E3CE.7D418DF0@ix.netcom.com>
Hello Philip,

As defined in Webster Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary Encyclopedic
edition copyright 1978,

Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the
Christian church or any portion of it.


So, I certainly hope so,

Tom Zimmer

Philip Preston wrote:

> Tom Zimmer wrote in message <················@tmqaustin.com>...
>
> [snip]
> >Just my thoughts,
>
> Are you sure they are yours? They look suspiciously like dogma.
>
> Philip.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408992054350001@ppp020-max03.twics.com>
> As defined in Webster Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary Encyclopedic
> edition copyright 1978,
> 
> Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the
> Christian church or any portion of it.

May I suggest an adjustment there please...

"Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as *perceived* and ..."

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Thread die! (are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B60469.7E1767F7@gmx.de>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the
> > Christian church or any portion of it.
> 
> May I suggest an adjustment there please...
> 
> "Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as *perceived* and ..."

They all assume that there is truth outside of mathematical logic. But
simply, there isn't. To paraphrase the bible, we ate from the apple that
let us distinguish truth and false. But as is easily visible, it's still
stuck in our throat (after all, Eva didn't eat ;-), and therefore we
just are under the illusion that we could. The only thing we can is to
divide facts in truth and false, and be sure about the outcome, although
the vast majority of questions can't be answered with a "yes" or "no".

While I don't believe in Gods or devils, I'm quite sure that this thread
is directly from hell. It gets top scores on my "Troll of the year"
list. Let this thread die!

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Thread die! (are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <7paas5$ks3$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Bernd Paysan  writes:

	[ deleted ]
 
> While I don't believe in Gods or devils, I'm quite sure that this thread
> is directly from hell. It gets top scores on my "Troll of the year"
> list. Let this thread die!
> 
> -- 
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
> http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

As usual, Bernd is right on the money. A bas religious arguments!


-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b4cdd2.652286@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:25:27 +0100, "Philip Preston"
<······@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Tom Zimmer wrote in message <················@tmqaustin.com>...
>
>[snip]
>>Just my thoughts,
>
>Are you sure they are yours? They look suspiciously like dogma.

	All dogma was somebody's thoughts at sometime.  Are you
missing a ``received'' in the sentence above?  Like whether someone's
opposition/support for blocks is ``dogmatic'' generally carries the
connotations that it is *receieved* dogma, rather than dogma developed
by the author of the statement.  AFAICT, the technical term for a
belief developed by the author, which they are willing to hold and
espouse in the face of noisy opposition in an internet forum, is IMHO.


(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Philip Preston
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p6aec$uj5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
Bruce McFarling wrote in message
<···············@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>...
>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:25:27 +0100, "Philip Preston"
><······@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Tom Zimmer wrote in message <················@tmqaustin.com>...
>>
>>[snip]
>>>Just my thoughts,
>>
>>Are you sure they are yours? They look suspiciously like dogma.
>
> All dogma was somebody's thoughts at sometime.  Are you
>missing a ``received'' in the sentence above?

No, I'm not concerned with whether the ideas are original (few ideas are)
but whether they have been adopted on their individual merits (and are
susceptible to reasoned discussion) rather than accepted as part of a
"package deal".

Philip.
Member of FIG-UK: http://forth.org.uk
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B596AE.32F5@ieee.org>
Tom Zimmer wrote:
> 
> Hello Erik,
> 
> I hope I'm not butting in here where I shouldn't, but I have some responses
> to your posting.
> 
> Erik Naggum wrote:
> 
> > * Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com>
> > | You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
> > | to justify their evil ways.
> >
> >   I'm interested in a simple, straight-forward way to keep the two apart,
> >   for it seems to me that religions are the best vehicles to further evil:
> 
> I don't disagree here.  Many people have done bad things in the name of
> religion.
> 
> >
> >   those who act out of a belief without doubt will also not stop acting
> >   when people who had retained the capacity to doubt would have stopped.
> 
> Well, as a Christian, I have learned that God gave me a brain, and He
> expects me to use it.  I have the Bible, which tells me how to use it, and
> it doesn't justify evil.  I don't think Being a Christian has effected my
> ability
> to doubt, I just don't doubt God. And even if I did, or do doubt God
> from time to time, that doesn't effect my salvation, since it doesn't hinge
> on my ability to not doubt God without fail.  Salvation is a gift, that once
> it has been (genuinely) received, cannot be lost.
> 
[The real meat snipped]
> 
> Just my thoughts,
> 
> Tom Zimmer

Those are good thoughts, in that they are consistent and come from a
good man, whatever he thinks of himself. (Humility is good, too.) They
seem to be based on a number of unstated assumptions, many of which can
be deduced. I don't share most of those.

One of the assumptions is probably that the set of beliefs is valid, and
that what is right and what is wrong in known with certainty. There are
many in the world, of different religions, who hold that view of their
own beliefs. For some of them, it gives them the right and imposes on
them duty to force those beliefs (and tribal practices) on all others.
Achieving the political power to enforce their beliefs is a goal of
several religions and religious organizations today.

Theocracy and democracy are incompatible. Indeed, many references in
religion presuppose an absolute monarchy. Lord, King of the Universe,
Master, Prince of Peace, Prince of Darkness; the list is long. For many,
these are more than titles.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------

P.S.
> 
> I don't know where scapegoat came from, but if you are relating it
> to Christ, then surely you know that Jesus gave Himself willingly.  It
> is true that He asked God to take away the burden, but when God
> did not, then Jesus gave his life without resistance.

In the temple in old Jerusalem, two goats were part of the Yom Kippur
service. One was dedicated to God, the other to Azazel. The one
dedicated to God was slaughtered as a sacrifice, its blood being
spattered as part of the ritual. The other, the scapegoat (from
"escape") was symbolically loaded with the sins of the populace and
driven into the wilderness. In favt, driven over a cliff to its death at
a place thought to be called Azazel. An elaborate semaphor system
signaled back to the temple that the deed was done, and the service
resumed. It made no difference to the goats whether they were chosen for
God or for Azazel. What mattered was being selected to participate.
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <w6k8r0t8dp.fsf@wallace.nextel.no>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

>   (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)
From: Walter Rottenkolber
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b63582@news.sierratel.com>
And why are these waaaay off topics from comp.lang.lisp ending up in
comp.lang.forth..
These religious/political polemics belong elsewhere.

Walter Rottenkolber
------------------------------------------------------------
Espen Vestre wrote in message ...
>Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>
>>   (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?
>
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408990402500001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:

[The world according to Erik elided...] 

>   (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.)


Erik, where can I order the reprints :-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b75b3c.1521063@news.mclink.it>
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:02:50 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

> In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> 
> [The world according to Erik elided...] 
> 
> >   (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.)
> 
> 
> Erik, where can I order the reprints :-)

You can find an excerpt at http://www.naggum.no/. It's an interesting
reading.


Paolo
-- 
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B5FE23.688DCD12@gmx.de>
Erik Naggum wrote:
>   to remain a good person while being Christian is a lot harder than to
>   remain a good person without religious beliefs -- there's no one you can
>   ask forgiveness or to take responsiblity for your actions, there's no
>   illusion of a greater purpose that defends acts of evil and destruction
>   (like bombing abortion clinics or killing believers in other religions)
>   or to fill the void of a meaningless, wasted life, and there's no way you
>   can avoid being responsible for your own actions.  without a forgiving
>   "God", your only reference is HUMAN RIGHTS, and they cannot be forfeited
>   or reneged because some "God" told you to.

You might have missed the news, but there was recently a war where one
side bombed the other in the name of HUMAN RIGHTS. One can argue at
length about this war, but it's just that human rights are a sort of
religion, and even have their holy wars. It's not that a religion needs
a supreme being, or such like to tell you what's right and what's wrong.
Some even deliberately say that you should think yourself about that,
and if you find something worthwile, teach others about it. Turns into a
cult of dead philosophers pretty soon, though.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B2EFC1.29D5@ieee.org>
Ken Deboy wrote:
> 
> John Passaniti wrote:
> 
> > Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > ···················@g.local...
> > > Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the
> > > Indians' land, and the Indians have the *temerity*
> > > to object and even to *gasp* fight the people who
> > > invaded their country. Disgraceful!
> >
> > Well what do you expect from savages?  Good thing god-fearing
> > Christians came in to show them the way!  We all know that anything
> > drenched in Christianity automatically is blessed with love and
> > compassion.
> >
> > (whoops-- off topic-- better recover...)
> 
>  You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
> to
> justify their evil ways. It is true that historically some "Christians"
> have used
> their "religion" to justify acts which are contrary to the teachings of
> the Bible,
> just as some "Muslims" use their religion to justify acts which are
> contrary
> to the teachings of the Koran. To imply that Christianity (or any faith)
> is
> bad just because some people who claim to follow it are bad is stupid. Or
> 
> haven't you heard that it is wrong to stereotype? I bet you'd be pissed
> off
> if someone stereotyped you...
> 
> With best wishes,
> Ken

Just as there are those who assume that Christianity implies goodness,
there are some who assume that goodness implies Christianity. I once
stopped to help a stranded car that turned out to be driven by a nun.
The passengers were three other nuns and a priest. When I got them
going, the driver thanked me and said I was a good Christian. I assured
her that I acceped that as a complement, but that her criteria needed
revising: I am Jewish. (I didn't have the heart to tell her also that
I'm an atheist.) I had to tell her again that I wasn't insulted, and
appologized for having flustered her. She curtsied and fled. As I put my
tools away, the priest came to me and thanked me again, saying that I
had given them all much more than roadside help. These weren't stupid
people; I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
blind don't always like.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b35842.930484@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:01:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:

>I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
>blind don't always like.

	No, it's just social reference groups.  People who have Bible
drummed into them still keep forgetting that the Good Samaritan was
someone of the `wrong' religious persuasion.


(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p235q$ics$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au  writes:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:01:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> >I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
> >blind don't always like.
> 
> 	No, it's just social reference groups.  People who have Bible
> drummed into them still keep forgetting that the Good Samaritan was
> someone of the `wrong' religious persuasion.
> 
> 
> (
> ----------
> Virtually,
> 
> Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
> ····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
> )

The point of the Good Samaritan story was that _even_ a Samaritan could
be a good man. The Levites (or whoever) who did not help the injured man
were not being made out to be bad men either--they were simply pious
individuals who could not at that time incur the impurity of being
in the presence of a corpse (if the injured man pegged out). In their
value system, it was their obligation not to stop. Of course the parable
has subsequently been cited primarily to denigrate the Pharisaic (i.e.
pietist) branch of Judaism of that time.

BTW: Samaritans were looked down upon because they were foreigners who
converted to Judaism, hence interlopers & strangers from another tribe.

-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Rights?  Or Rites?  Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <MeMs3.6610$gO1.175350@news2.giganews.com>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:28:32 GMT, Bruce McFarling
<····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote: 
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:01:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>>I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
>>blind don't always like.
>
>	No, it's just social reference groups.  People who have Bible
>drummed into them still keep forgetting that the Good Samaritan was
>someone of the `wrong' religious persuasion.

Very good point...  

It is entirely evident that lots of "demographic groups" contain
sanctimoniously blind people, certainly *most* of them, and possibly
even *all* of them.

That includes churches, school boards, and lots of other places.

One of the interesting points I heard come out of the recent arguments
in Kansas over the teaching of evolution (or lack thereof) was that
there were teaching situations where there was such pointed
disagreement over the issue that it didn't even make sense to *bother*
bringing evolution up as an issue.

If you have a situation where there's not going to be a sensible
teaching situation, what makes more sense?
a) Making the school into a battleground between people of varying
   theological beliefs? or
b) Dropping the issue which, quite frankly, isn't of fundamental
   importance to most of the rest of the things that could be taught,
   and spend time teaching less controversial matters?

Some battles simply aren't worth winning, as they wind up razing the
rest of the environment.

[Try and guess *my* stance from the above...]
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Burton Radons
Subject: Re: Rights? Or Rites? Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37bd015e.64388082@news.cow-net.com>
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 03:25:32 GMT, ········@news.hex.net (Christopher
Browne) wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:28:32 GMT, Bruce McFarling
><····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote: 
>>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:01:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness which the
>>>blind don't always like.
>>
>>	No, it's just social reference groups.  People who have Bible
>>drummed into them still keep forgetting that the Good Samaritan was
>>someone of the `wrong' religious persuasion.
>
>Very good point...  
>
>It is entirely evident that lots of "demographic groups" contain
>sanctimoniously blind people, certainly *most* of them, and possibly
>even *all* of them.
>
>That includes churches, school boards, and lots of other places.
>
>One of the interesting points I heard come out of the recent arguments
>in Kansas over the teaching of evolution (or lack thereof) was that
>there were teaching situations where there was such pointed
>disagreement over the issue that it didn't even make sense to *bother*
>bringing evolution up as an issue.

Sheesh, the US is really becoming backwards on this.  The way I see it
is that religion tells you what's on the other side of the hill; a
cult tells you what's on this side of the hill, what we can see, and a
philosophy gives you an interpretation of what you can see.  As our
knowledge increases we've raised higher on this hill, increasing our
perspectives.  Religions become cults as their falseness is exposed,
and they either whither, run and cower under the rocks, say that what
they said was there was analogy, or stand their ground and glare back
at science, and there's examples of all.

Science isn't a religion itself.  It's knowledge and philosophy in
hand, one confirming the other.  We can't see an atom, but if I said
the universe was made of nanoscopic pink elephants, there would be
evidence to contradict.  Anything which stands on it's own, as
knowledge or philosophy, is either given a support of the other half
or viciously knocked down.

Spirituality does have relevance.  It's important in a criminal
system.  If a crime is not a sin, you have problems keeping people
from committing it; this up-and-coming generation has this deficiency
as obvious as if one of it's arms was missing.  It's also important in
simply keeping people happy.  But I don't think using a tattered book
censored by knowledge and stuck with blood of a thousand years is good
spirituality.  Adopting the basically atheist (Or, rather,
theologically neutral) original Jesus teachings would be better, at
the least, and discarding the hype around his birth and death.

Not that christianity hasn't also done good.  Who printed books for a
thousand years?  Not the kings and peasants, I'll tell you that.  The
Great Library may have burned, but if the monasteries didn't keep
books up then it wouldn't have mattered if all of Hades consumed
Greece or not, we would still be in the dark ages.

>If you have a situation where there's not going to be a sensible
>teaching situation, what makes more sense?
>a) Making the school into a battleground between people of varying
>   theological beliefs? or
>b) Dropping the issue which, quite frankly, isn't of fundamental
>   importance to most of the rest of the things that could be taught,
>   and spend time teaching less controversial matters?
>
>Some battles simply aren't worth winning, as they wind up razing the
>rest of the environment.
>
>[Try and guess *my* stance from the above...]

It's a whole mesh of issues, though; one of the things about Satan was
that the first time you let him in the door, it is easier the second
time.  Obviously creationism is amazingly backwards and this cult
front of christianity will only get more annoying as we learn more
that they already knew.  If you let this issue go this time, it's
easier the next time until we all become socially correct and
homogenously ignorant.

Christians seem to forget that this life is a test.  If their beliefs
aren't going to be tested, if they lead a sheltered life, it's
automatic failure of the test.  If their beliefs can't stand against
what they hear from the devil, then their soul had already been
corrupt, waiting for the correct trigger.  Of course, with the later
distortion of Jesus this doesn't apply as much, but if entrance to
heaven only requires a stamp on your heart, then it shouldn't matter
what tries to corrupt them.

I think what these groups are trying to say is that they want some
time to feed lies into the shapeable young minds so that they're more
impervious to reason later.

What are battles if not meant to be fought?  I don't see why this
universe is taken so seriously.  There's certainly nothing about it
that suggests it should be.  Everywhere I go I see kick-me signs.
But, of course, I'm a chaotic neutral and can't be reasoned with.  I
just see any application of sanity as completely against all of
physics.

As to whether Lisp will live, hell yes.  It's like humans; we're
waiting for some big cataclysm to kill ourselves off with, but it'll
never happen.  Humanity will survive forever, and computer languages
will survive until they're long past irrelevancy.  BASIC is surviving.
Doesn't that say EVERYthing?  _BASIC_ IS SURVIVING!  Should I shout it
again?  It's just too far beyond purpose and reason.  Lisp is a good,
intelligent language.  It might change, but for the better, just as C
is changing.  Whether it becomes popular or not, why should anyone
care?  It's there now.  Isn't the point to enjoy the language?

- Burton Radons, ····@cow-net.com
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
(main) http://csoft.net/~loth/index.shtml
(bg) http://csoft.net/~loth/bg/index.shtml
From: Bart Lateur
Subject: Re: Rights? Or Rites? Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b69282.3351468@news.skynet.be>
Burton Radons wrote:

>As to whether Lisp will live, hell yes.  It's like humans; we're
>waiting for some big cataclysm to kill ourselves off with, but it'll
>never happen.  Humanity will survive forever, and computer languages
>will survive until they're long past irrelevancy.  BASIC is surviving.
>Doesn't that say EVERYthing?  _BASIC_ IS SURVIVING!  Should I shout it
>again?  It's just too far beyond purpose and reason.  Lisp is a good,
>intelligent language.  It might change, but for the better, just as C
>is changing.  Whether it becomes popular or not, why should anyone
>care?  It's there now.  Isn't the point to enjoy the language?

Lisp (or Scheme) deserves to survive. It is one of the language
*everybody* who gets an education in computer sciences, should learn.
Basic, C, Pascal, Modula, Algol, Fortran... these are basically all the
same language. Lisp is different. FORTH is different. Smalltalk is
different. When comparing to these, you start to see how similar the
other languages really are. Only when learning the alternatives, you see
how narrow your view on computing really was.

	Bart.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Rights? Or Rites? Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7g11k59jq.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
> Lisp (or Scheme) deserves to survive. 

In order to survive, you have to 

 - stay alive
 - reproduce
 - spread

Seems that the latter bit has been taken to extremes not witnessed by too
many other computer languages, in the form of the Deep Space autonomous(-ish)
mission.


                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Rights? Or Rites? Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1708990237150001@ppp036-max03.twics.com>
> > Lisp (or Scheme) deserves to survive. 
> 
> In order to survive, you have to 
> 
>  - stay alive
>  - reproduce
>  - spread
> 
> Seems that the latter bit has been taken to extremes not witnessed by too
> many other computer languages, in the form of the Deep Space autonomous(-ish)
> mission.

That is an interesting point. Imagine DS1 captured one day by a
civilisation who have just reached the level of FORTRAN sending out their
first missions into Space. That raises the question ...

Chuck, did any of you guys make sure Nasa put Steele's CL spec and an
implementation manual aboard DS1 ? ;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: John Passaniti
Subject: Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <WzOs3.370$is3.7639@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>
Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message
··················@ieee.org...
> 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 debugger 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
BlowUpAbortionClinic 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.
From: Keith Wootten
Subject: Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <tgsGhAAmI9s3EwSD@wootten.demon.co.uk>
In article <··················@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, John Passaniti
<·····@rochester.rr.com> writes

[much entertainment snipped]

>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
From: Bruce R. McFarling
Subject: Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b3d14a.17659012@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:53:09 -0400, "John Passaniti"
<·····@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

	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?
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Last rights. Was Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B4D1B7.4816@ieee.org>
John,

I think that what you wrote is worthy of Johnathan Swift.
> 
> Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message
> ··················@ieee.org...
> > 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.
> 
[more good satire snipped]

Jerry
From: Bruce Hoyt
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <mgHs3.1426$q.43931@news.clear.net.nz>
Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message
··················@ieee.org...

> Just as there are those who assume that Christianity implies
goodness,
> there are some who assume that goodness implies Christianity.
I once
> stopped to help a stranded car that turned out to be driven by
a nun.
> The passengers were three other nuns and a priest. When I got
them
> going, the driver thanked me and said I was a good Christian.
I assured
> her that I acceped that as a complement, but that her criteria
needed
> revising: I am Jewish. (I didn't have the heart to tell her
also that
> I'm an atheist.) I had to tell her again that I wasn't
insulted, and
> appologized for having flustered her. She curtsied and fled.
As I put my
> tools away, the priest came to me and thanked me again, saying
that I
> had given them all much more than roadside help. These weren't
stupid
> people; I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness
which the
> blind don't always like.

Is it a contradiction to be Jewish and Christian? You seem to
imply that. But then how can one be Jewish and an atheist?

If being Christian means holding to a certain set of beliefs (as
it has traditionally been defined), and if being Jewish means
holding to another (and to some extent contradictory) set of
beliefs, then one cannot be a Christian and at the same time
Jewish. But one cannot be Jewish and an atheist either.

But if being Jewish means being descended from Jewish forebears
(perhaps going as far back as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) then one
certainly can be a Jewish Christian. And one can also be a
Jewish atheist.

Bruce
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p2405$im3$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
"Bruce Hoyt"  writes:
> 
> Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message
> ··················@ieee.org...
> 
> > Just as there are those who assume that Christianity implies
> goodness,
> > there are some who assume that goodness implies Christianity.
> I once
> > stopped to help a stranded car that turned out to be driven by
> a nun.
> > The passengers were three other nuns and a priest. When I got
> them
> > going, the driver thanked me and said I was a good Christian.
> I assured
> > her that I acceped that as a complement, but that her criteria
> needed
> > revising: I am Jewish. (I didn't have the heart to tell her
> also that
> > I'm an atheist.) I had to tell her again that I wasn't
> insulted, and
> > appologized for having flustered her. She curtsied and fled.
> As I put my
> > tools away, the priest came to me and thanked me again, saying
> that I
> > had given them all much more than roadside help. These weren't
> stupid
> > people; I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness
> which the
> > blind don't always like.
> 
> Is it a contradiction to be Jewish and Christian? You seem to
> imply that. But then how can one be Jewish and an atheist?
> 
> If being Christian means holding to a certain set of beliefs (as
> it has traditionally been defined), and if being Jewish means
> holding to another (and to some extent contradictory) set of
> beliefs, then one cannot be a Christian and at the same time
> Jewish. But one cannot be Jewish and an atheist either.
> 
> But if being Jewish means being descended from Jewish forebears
> (perhaps going as far back as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) then one
> certainly can be a Jewish Christian. And one can also be a
> Jewish atheist.
> 
> Bruce
 
Judaism is not primarily a belief system (although it has elements
thereof grafted on) but a tribal/ethnic identification based on
language, custom, rules and ancestry. Conversion to Judaism is
not so much subscription to a credo as it is adoption into a tribe.

Despite there being groups like Jews for Jesus, and despite the
fact that the original followers (ante-Paul) of Jesus were primarily Jews,
the core beliefs of Judaism are primarily concerned with actions and
this world, in contrast to Christianity (modern, that is) whose core
involves faith.

One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest disbelieves
in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of Christian or
pagan upbringing.

-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B4CFA1.2F7F@ieee.org>
Julian V. Noble wrote:
> 
> "Bruce Hoyt"  writes:
> >
> > Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message
> > ··················@ieee.org...
> >
> > > Just as there are those who assume that Christianity implies
> > goodness,
> > > there are some who assume that goodness implies Christianity.
> > I once
> > > stopped to help a stranded car that turned out to be driven by
> > a nun.
> > > The passengers were three other nuns and a priest. When I got
> > them
> > > going, the driver thanked me and said I was a good Christian.
> > I assured
> > > her that I acceped that as a complement, but that her criteria
> > needed
> > > revising: I am Jewish. (I didn't have the heart to tell her
> > also that
> > > I'm an atheist.) I had to tell her again that I wasn't
> > insulted, and
> > > appologized for having flustered her. She curtsied and fled.
> > As I put my
> > > tools away, the priest came to me and thanked me again, saying
> > that I
> > > had given them all much more than roadside help. These weren't
> > stupid
> > > people; I can only assume that sanctimony creates blindness
> > which the
> > > blind don't always like.
> >
> > Is it a contradiction to be Jewish and Christian? You seem to
> > imply that. But then how can one be Jewish and an atheist?
> >
> > If being Christian means holding to a certain set of beliefs (as
> > it has traditionally been defined), and if being Jewish means
> > holding to another (and to some extent contradictory) set of
> > beliefs, then one cannot be a Christian and at the same time
> > Jewish. But one cannot be Jewish and an atheist either.
> >
> > But if being Jewish means being descended from Jewish forebears
> > (perhaps going as far back as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) then one
> > certainly can be a Jewish Christian. And one can also be a
> > Jewish atheist.
> >
> > Bruce
> 
> Judaism is not primarily a belief system (although it has elements
> thereof grafted on) but a tribal/ethnic identification based on
> language, custom, rules and ancestry. Conversion to Judaism is
> not so much subscription to a credo as it is adoption into a tribe.
> 
> Despite there being groups like Jews for Jesus, and despite the
> fact that the original followers (ante-Paul) of Jesus were primarily Jews,
> the core beliefs of Judaism are primarily concerned with actions and
> this world, in contrast to Christianity (modern, that is) whose core
> involves faith.
> 
> One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest disbelieves
> in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of Christian or
> pagan upbringing.
> 
> --
> Julian V. Noble
> ···@virginia.edu
> 
> "Elegance is for tailors!"      -- Ludwig Boltzmann

As a Jewish atheist, I can certify that at least one exists. Julian has
it correctly; being a member of that tribe isn't optional. Even if I
wanted it otherwise, there are those who would not accept that, and even
today, there are far too many who would like to think of me as raw
material for a lampshade.

Julian is also correct about practice's being considered more important
than faith. A rabbi friend tried for years to get me to attend services
regularly, with no hint that I ought to change my beliefs. "What matters
to God is what you do, not what you believe." We remained friends
despite my disinterest. Many of my charitable contributions are to
Jewish causes, including the local synagogue. It is an important local
cultural center; I want it to be there, even while having little
personal contact and no philosophical affinity at all.

When my Jewish acquaintances ask about religion, I tell than I am an
atheist; to Christians, I say I am a Jew. To say otherwise would seem to
many (and to me!) to be hiding something.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Hoyt
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <AAit3.1620$q.49062@news.clear.net.nz>
Thank you Julian and Jerry. I learned something I didn't know
about being a Jew and it helps me fits several pieces of my
knowledge puzzle together.

Bruce

Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote in message
··················@ieee.org...
> Julian V. Noble wrote:
> > Judaism is not primarily a belief system (although it has
elements
> > thereof grafted on) but a tribal/ethnic identification based
on
> > language, custom, rules and ancestry. Conversion to Judaism
is
> > not so much subscription to a credo as it is adoption into a
tribe.
> >
> > Despite there being groups like Jews for Jesus, and despite
the
> > fact that the original followers (ante-Paul) of Jesus were
primarily Jews,
> > the core beliefs of Judaism are primarily concerned with
actions and
> > this world, in contrast to Christianity (modern, that is)
whose core
> > involves faith.
> >
> > One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest
disbelieves
> > in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of
Christian or
> > pagan upbringing.
>
> As a Jewish atheist, I can certify that at least one exists.
Julian has
> it correctly; being a member of that tribe isn't optional.
Even if I
> wanted it otherwise, there are those who would not accept
that, and even
> today, there are far too many who would like to think of me as
raw
> material for a lampshade.
>
> Julian is also correct about practice's being considered more
important
> than faith. A rabbi friend tried for years to get me to attend
services
> regularly, with no hint that I ought to change my beliefs.
"What matters
> to God is what you do, not what you believe." We remained
friends
> despite my disinterest. Many of my charitable contributions
are to
> Jewish causes, including the local synagogue. It is an
important local
> cultural center; I want it to be there, even while having
little
> personal contact and no philosophical affinity at all.
>
> When my Jewish acquaintances ask about religion, I tell than I
am an
> atheist; to Christians, I say I am a Jew. To say otherwise
would seem to
> many (and to me!) to be hiding something.
>
> Jerry
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b4ce9a.852352@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On 13 Aug 1999 21:51:01 GMT, ···@node5.unix.Virginia.EDU (Julian V.
Noble) wrote:

>Judaism is not primarily a belief system (although it has elements
>thereof grafted on) but a tribal/ethnic identification based on
>language, custom, rules and ancestry. Conversion to Judaism is
>not so much subscription to a credo as it is adoption into a tribe.
>
>Despite there being groups like Jews for Jesus, and despite the
>fact that the original followers (ante-Paul) of Jesus were primarily Jews,
>the core beliefs of Judaism are primarily concerned with actions and
>this world, in contrast to Christianity (modern, that is) whose core
>involves faith.
>
>One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest disbelieves
>in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of Christian or
>pagan upbringing.

	Is it also that case that a Forth atheist disbelieves in an
entirely different sort of programming paradigm than a C++ atheist?


(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Stig E. Sand�
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7ra3ke.d53.stig@ara.ii.uib.no>
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 02:04:57 GMT, Bruce McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest disbelieves
>>in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of Christian or
>>pagan upbringing.
>
>	Is it also that case that a Forth atheist disbelieves in an
>entirely different sort of programming paradigm than a C++ atheist?

Does Forth have void or a false value 0 surrounded by millions 
and millions of true values (all of them boiling down to the 1 true 
faith)?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe    Institute of Informatics, University of Bergen
····@ii.uib.no                         http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Steven R. Wheeler
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B60083.285B@xpert.net>
Stig E. Sand� wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 02:04:57 GMT, Bruce McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest disbelieves
> >>in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of Christian or
> >>pagan upbringing.
> >
> >       Is it also that case that a Forth atheist disbelieves in an
> >entirely different sort of programming paradigm than a C++ atheist?
> 
> Does Forth have void or a false value 0 surrounded by millions
> and millions of true values (all of them boiling down to the 1 true
> faith)?

I thought Forth _was_ millions of true values boiling down to the one
true faith! :-)

- wheels
From: Walter Rottenkolber
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b63580@news.sierratel.com>
Considering that TRUE in ansForth is all bits set to 1, I'd say that you are
correct.

Walter Rottenkolber
----------------------------------------------------
>
>I thought Forth _was_ millions of true values boiling down to the one
>true faith! :-)
>
>- wheels
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B605B3.1446E2E@gmx.de>
Stig E. Sand� wrote:
> Does Forth have void or a false value 0 surrounded by millions
> and millions of true values (all of them boiling down to the 1 true
> faith)?

Yes, certainly. But the one true faith is -1 instead of 1 in C++. It
also shows that by negating truth, you get just another truth.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <7p82a1$qd3k@fido.engr.sgi.com>
Bernd Paysan  <············@gmx.de> wrote:
+---------------
| Stig E. Sand� wrote:
| > Does Forth have void or a false value 0 surrounded by millions
| > and millions of true values (all of them boiling down to the 1 true
| > faith)?
| 
| Yes, certainly. But the one true faith is -1 instead of 1 in C++. It
| also shows that by negating truth, you get just another truth.
+---------------

IIRC, the BLISS language also used -1 for the one true truth.

But let's not forget the AMD Am29000 series, wherein "truth" == "negative"
(or more precisely, a "1" in the most-significant bit), and the architecture
specifically *didn't* define any "one true truth" other than the MSB.

[In fact, unless you read some specific processor manual *very* closely, you
couldn't even find out *what* the "compare" instructions returned for that
processor model. On the 29000 and 29030, they happened to return #x80000000
for true and 0 for false, but AMD reserved the right to change that...]

Though since a boolean could be converted to a full-word mask in just one
more cycle, you could still get pipeline-efficient branch-free selection
of alterative values. E.g., the code "(if (< a b) c d)" could be coded as
the 5-cycle sequence [assuming "a"-"d" already in the registers]:

	cplt	t0, a, b
	sra	t0, t0, 31	; propagate sign bit throughout word
	and	t1, c, t0
	andn	t2, d, t0
	or	t0, t1, t2	; final result in t0


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, 8L-846		····@sgi.com
Applied Networking		http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA
From: Walter Rottenkolber
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b86f14@news.sierratel.com>
Many years ago there was a CP/M program called Kamas, which started life as
a BBS program, and evolved into an outline program for writing. It was a
variant of STOIC, and its True was a 1 in the least-significant bit, i.e.
Odd numbers were true and Even numbers were false.

Walter Rottenkolber
-----------------------------------------------------------

>But let's not forget the AMD Am29000 series, wherein "truth" == "negative"
>(or more precisely, a "1" in the most-significant bit), and the
architecture
>specifically *didn't* define any "one true truth" other than the MSB.
>
From: Charles R Martin
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B89BC5.B96D5C49@iglobal.net>
Walter Rottenkolber wrote:
> 
> Many years ago there was a CP/M program called Kamas, which started life as
> a BBS program, and evolved into an outline program for writing. It was a
> variant of STOIC, and its True was a 1 in the least-significant bit, i.e.
> Odd numbers were true and Even numbers were false.

This was also true of VAXen using VMS.  It was kind of nice, compared to UNIX
practice, because then you could have many informative "success" return codes
as well as "failure" return codes.

-- 
The strongest human instinct is to impart information, the
second is to resist it. --Kenneth Grahame
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B8C5B9.3336@ieee.org>
Walter Rottenkolber wrote:
> 
> Many years ago there was a CP/M program called Kamas, which started life as
> a BBS program, and evolved into an outline program for writing. It was a
> variant of STOIC, and its True was a 1 in the least-significant bit, i.e.
> Odd numbers were true and Even numbers were false.
> 
> Walter Rottenkolber
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
Hmmm... Two truths make a flasehood. At least, two falsehoods don't make
a truth. (I assume addition here.)

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <7pek6c$i9r$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Jerry Avins  writes:
> Walter Rottenkolber wrote:
> > 
> > Many years ago there was a CP/M program called Kamas, which started life as
> > a BBS program, and evolved into an outline program for writing. It was a
> > variant of STOIC, and its True was a 1 in the least-significant bit, i.e.
> > Odd numbers were true and Even numbers were false.
> > 
> > Walter Rottenkolber
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> Hmmm... Two truths make a flasehood. At least, two falsehoods don't make
> a truth. (I assume addition here.)
> 
> Jerry
> -- 

Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
to which someone in the audience replied

	"Yeah, yeah."





-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Charles R Martin
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37BADF59.635539B8@iglobal.net>
Oh, I *love* it.

"Julian V. Noble" wrote:
> 
> Jerry Avins  writes:
> > Walter Rottenkolber wrote:
> > >
> > > Many years ago there was a CP/M program called Kamas, which started life as
> > > a BBS program, and evolved into an outline program for writing. It was a
> > > variant of STOIC, and its True was a 1 in the least-significant bit, i.e.
> > > Odd numbers were true and Even numbers were false.
> > >
> > > Walter Rottenkolber
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > Hmmm... Two truths make a flasehood. At least, two falsehoods don't make
> > a truth. (I assume addition here.)
> >
> > Jerry
> > --
> 
> Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
> the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
> converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
> it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
> there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
> to which someone in the audience replied
> 
>         "Yeah, yeah."
> 
> --
> Julian V. Noble
> ···@virginia.edu
> 
> "Elegance is for tailors!"      -- Ludwig Boltzmann

-- 
The strongest human instinct is to impart information, the
second is to resist it. --Kenneth Grahame
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <u74shx57uv.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
> Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
> the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
> converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
> it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
> there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
> to which someone in the audience replied

> "Yeah, yeah."

I heard this cited as "yeah, right", which seems to be a stronger version.

                                                                      Philip

-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ph4uo$n23$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Philip Lijnzaad  writes:
> 
> > Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
> > the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
> > converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
> > it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
> > there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
> > to which someone in the audience replied
> 
> > "Yeah, yeah."
> 
> I heard this cited as "yeah, right", which seems to be a stronger version.
> 
>                                                                       Philip

In US English--admittedly not exactly the same as the Queen's English--
"Yeah, yeah" is far more dismissive and negative in tone than "Yeah,
right." In fact the latter is a most unlikely allocution on this side
of the pond.

 
-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Dave Hansen
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37bc3d01.12447839@192.168.2.34>
On 19 Aug 1999 14:39:20 GMT, ···@node8.unix.Virginia.EDU (Julian V.
Noble) wrote:

[...]
>In US English--admittedly not exactly the same as the Queen's English--
>"Yeah, yeah" is far more dismissive and negative in tone than "Yeah,
>right." In fact the latter is a most unlikely allocution on this side
>of the pond.

Yeah, right.

;-)

Regards,

                          -=Dave
Just my (10-010) cents
I can barely speak for myself, so I certainly can't speak for B-Tree.
Change is inevitable.  Progress is not.
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37BCA6D0.374F@ieee.org>
Julian V. Noble wrote:
> 
> Philip Lijnzaad  writes:
> >
> > > Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
> > > the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
> > > converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
> > > it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
> > > there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
> > > to which someone in the audience replied
> >
> > > "Yeah, yeah."
> >
> > I heard this cited as "yeah, right", which seems to be a stronger version.
> >
> >                                                                       Philip
> 
> In US English--admittedly not exactly the same as the Queen's English--
> "Yeah, yeah" is far more dismissive and negative in tone than "Yeah,
> right." In fact the latter is a most unlikely allocution on this side
> of the pond.
> 
> 
> --
> Julian V. Noble
> ···@virginia.edu
> 
> "Elegance is for tailors!"      -- Ludwig Boltzmann

It must be regional. In my experience, "Yeah, yeah" can often mean "We
heard all that [irrelevant stuff] before", while "Yeah, right!" always
means "In a pigs eye!" i.e., "Not on your life!"

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <qTUu3.221$Fw3.5051@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
You posted a longer version of that in this newsgroup a few years ago.  It's
been one of my favorite jokes to tell ever since.  But your original post
said that you overheard this conversation at the the school cafe from a
group of lunching linguistic people.

I've always wondered if it really occurred spontaneously.  I guess it
didn't.  Too bad.  But it's still a great story.

Barry

Julian V. Noble <···@node6.unix.Virginia.EDU> wrote in message >

> Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
> the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
> converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
> it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
> there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
> to which someone in the audience replied
>
> "Yeah, yeah."
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Julian V. Noble
> ···@virginia.edu
>
> "Elegance is for tailors!" -- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ph7s1$ols$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
"Barry"  writes:
> You posted a longer version of that in this newsgroup a few years ago.  It's
> been one of my favorite jokes to tell ever since.  But your original post
> said that you overheard this conversation at the the school cafe from a
> group of lunching linguistic people.
> 
> I've always wondered if it really occurred spontaneously.  I guess it
> didn't.  Too bad.  But it's still a great story.
> 
> Barry

My recollection is that the story was told by lunching linguists.

As for the reduced length, one learns terseness with age. After all,
there is less time to waste, n'est ce pas?

And re: having posted it before, that's another symptom of aging.
We forget what stories we have told to whom.

Cheers.

-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Len Zettel
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37BC3B87.B8C5FED1@orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us>
Barry wrote:
> 
(snip)
> 
> I've always wondered if it really occurred spontaneously.  I guess it
> didn't.  Too bad.  But it's still a great story.
> 
> Barry
> 
I first read an account of this in no less a journal than Science, in
their News and Comment section.  The author used the anecdote to illustrate
that the person being profiled (who uttered the response from the back of the 
room during a conference paper presentation) was a) Very bright b) Something 
of a wise ass and therefore c) not very well liked by a number of his 
colleagues.

> Julian V. Noble <···@node6.unix.Virginia.EDU> wrote in message >
> 
> > Reminds me of a linguistics convention where a speaker was discussing
> > the fact that in some languages (such as English) the double negative
> > converts to positive (i.e. false false = true); whereas others use
> > it to reinforce negativity (as in French, ne ... pas). He then claimed
> > there was no language in which the double positive implied negativity--
> > to which someone in the audience replied
> >
> > "Yeah, yeah."
> >
Note to non-Americans: voice tone is very important in delivering this.
  -LenZ-

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Julian V. Noble
> > ···@virginia.edu
> >
> > "Elegance is for tailors!" -- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Mike Hore
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <_Q4v3.230$873.10464@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
In article <·················@orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us> , Len Zettel 
<······@orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us>  wrote:

>> >
>> > "Yeah, yeah."
>> >
> Note to non-Americans: voice tone is very important in delivering this.
>   -LenZ-
>

True, in which case (putting on linguistic hat here) we could argue that
the negativity is being carried by the intonation rather than the actual
words.

Cheers,  Mike.

(Pulls head in and returns to lurk-land)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mike Hore     ····@jamsoft.com.au  or  ········@bigpond.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Last rights.
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b60925.1836745@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On 14 Aug 1999 08:37:02 +0200, ····@ii.uib.no (Stig E. Sand�) wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 02:04:57 GMT, Bruce McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>One elegant way it has been put is that a Jewish athiest disbelieves
>>>in an entirely different sort of diety than an athiest of Christian or
>>>pagan upbringing.
>>
>>	Is it also that case that a Forth atheist disbelieves in an
>>entirely different sort of programming paradigm than a C++ atheist?
>
>Does Forth have void or a false value 0 surrounded by millions 
>and millions of true values (all of them boiling down to the 1 true 
>faith)?

	Aha, now you are getting down to sectarian conflicts.

17. ANS Forth follows Forth-83 in having One True TRUE and One True
FALSE, *but* in having thousands, and in larger systems millions, of
true values.

18. Other systems have had a TRUE values which was not the One True
TRRUE value, in that `` value TRUE AND '' was not guaranteed to be
``value'', and `` value TRUE OR '' was not guaranteed to be TRUE.

Here ends the reading from 2nd Booles.


(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Christopher B. Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7pnn7h.1p0.cbbrowne@knuth.brownes.org>
On 26 Jul 1999 01:10:40 +0100, Gareth McCaughan
<················@pobox.com> posted:
>Julian V. Noble wrote:
>> There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
>> treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the Indians
>> killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.
>
>Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the Indians' land,
>and the Indians have the *temerity* to object and even to *gasp*
>fight the people who invaded their country. Disgraceful!

The point is that Rousseau's position involves myths and propaganda, much
as later positions involve myths and propaganda, much as the positions
promoted today involve myths and propaganda.

In order to get to the root of the issues, you have to at least *try*
to strip off the propaganda.
-- 
"If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use?  Two strong oxen
 or 1024 chickens?"
-- Seymour Cray
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <pw-2707990955270001@166.84.250.180>
In article <·······················@knuth.brownes.org>, ········@hex.net wrote:

>On 26 Jul 1999 01:10:40 +0100, Gareth McCaughan
><················@pobox.com> posted:
>>Julian V. Noble wrote:
>>> There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
>>> treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the Indians
>>> killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.
>>
>>Yeah, shocking. These people come and take the Indians' land,
>>and the Indians have the *temerity* to object and even to *gasp*
>>fight the people who invaded their country. Disgraceful!
>
>The point is that Rousseau's position involves myths and propaganda, much
>as later positions involve myths and propaganda, much as the positions
>promoted today involve myths and propaganda.

FWIW, the "most deaths were caused by disease" bit is similarly
propagandistic, since (some) settlers were known for selling to
the natives blankets that had previously been the property of
smallpox victims, with the knowledge and intent that those blankets
would spread contagion in a population that was immunologically
vulnerable.

paul
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0108991646320001@ppp030-max03.twics.com>
>
>...the mistreatment of Native Americans by the Europeans...
>

I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,

however, it is quite interesting how things are being named ...

The settlers who involved in disgraceful acts against humanity were
referred to as "Europeans".

Perhaps, if the subject was history to be proud of, these settlers would
have been referred to as "Americans".

This makes me wonder, when did the European settlers actually turn into
Americans ?

Just wondering..., no offense intended.


Here in Japan, where I live, we are equally treated as far as naming is
concerned. They call us "Oh-Bei-Jin" = European-American-Person(s).


Anyway, I had hoped to learn something about whether or not LISP has
future. Is there anyone who could post a summary with that focus ?

thanks
Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7o1gj2$49a$1@news.campuscwix.net>
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote in message
·····································@ppp030-max03.twics.com...
> >
> >...the mistreatment of Native Americans by the Europeans...
> >
>
> I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
> possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,
>
> however, it is quite interesting how things are being named ...
>
> The settlers who involved in disgraceful acts against humanity were
> referred to as "Europeans".
>
> Perhaps, if the subject was history to be proud of, these settlers would
> have been referred to as "Americans".
>
> This makes me wonder, when did the European settlers actually turn into
> Americans ?

The term was first used to refer to the colonists in the years just prior to
the American Revolution. Before then (when it was used, which was apparently
not common) it referred to the Native Americans.

> Just wondering..., no offense intended.
>
> Here in Japan, where I live, we are equally treated as far as naming is
> concerned. They call us "Oh-Bei-Jin" = European-American-Person(s).

My understanding is that an accurate translation of that term is a bit less
flattering than that...

> Anyway, I had hoped to learn something about whether or not LISP has
> future. Is there anyone who could post a summary with that focus ?

I can't do that, but I suspect that it will be around for quite a long time
to come in one form or another. Emacs Lisp or Guile for Gimp (and Gnome,
IIRC), which is a dialect of Scheme which is a descendant of Lisp, come to
mind.

Larry
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0108992359110001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
[Anyone not interested in this off-topic excursion please move down one page]

> The term was first used to refer to the colonists in the years just prior to
> the American Revolution. Before then (when it was used, which was apparently
> not common) it referred to the Native Americans.

I was more aiming at the fact, that they were called "Europeans" when they
did bad things, but probably "Americans" when they had done good things.

> > They call us "Oh-Bei-Jin" = European-American-Person(s).
> 
> My understanding is that an accurate translation of that term is a bit less
> flattering than that...

Your understanding is wrong then. The translation is literal:
"Oh" for Europe, "Bei" for America and "Jin" for Person(s).

The only flattening thing for you, perhaps is, that Europe comes first. ;-)

BEI actually means Rice (in form of harvested crop) but has in this form
turned into the meaning of America. This is because of the way you write
America in chinese characters AH-MEI-LI-KA. The only distinctive character
in there is MEI, BEI is a different pronounciation of that character (like
multiple bindings for a variable in a programming language). The form
nowadays used is short BEI-KOKU (Rice Country) for America. In China they
use the character "Beautiful", pronounced MEI instead of "Rice", which
also stems from AH-MEI-LI-KA, but this time the short form MEI-GUO means
"Country of Beauty".

When matching a foreign term to chinese characters the aim is always to
find characters that do not only resemble the pronounciation but also have
positive meanings. In Japan rice is a sacred commodity, the term rice
country for America is an honour, not flattening at all. Characters chosen
for other countries support this: England -> Brightness, Shining; France
-> Religious, Buddha;

Of particular interest in this context is the character for Germany. The
original character, which is still being used in China means Morality,
Virtue, Privilege. The new character used after a reform under American
occupation means: bureaucratic, self righteous and dictatorial depending
on context.

As you can see the "flattening influence" here was american ;-) but you
might perhaps argue that the Germans had deserved the loss of the
character Morality in their country's name, having started two world wars
and all the rest of it.

This is not intended an offense. I myself would probably have left the
Japanese their character for Germany, if just for the sake of
compatibility with Chinese.


************************************************************
Anyway, again trying to get back to the topic   L I S P  ...
************************************************************

What I would be interested to know the advocate's opinion on LISP is ...

- Will LISP "survive" in a commercial context ?

keywords: licensing problems with LISP images, LISP images reportedly
being too heavy (is this a myth ?) etc.
On the Macintosh for example I was interested in MCL but their licensing
policy, though it makes sense (Subscription based), is likely to put off
anyone but die hard users of the language.

- How competitive is LISP in terms of cross-platform portability ?

I believe the popularity of tools/languages like Perl or Java has to do to
quite some level with the fact, that you can find a "runtime system" for
almost any platform there is, even exotic ones, that pretty much run your
code out of the box with very less or no porting effort.

- Is it easy to find code/docu for boring real-world commercial applications ?

Undoubtedly LISP has a great advantage four AI and Language
processing/design. How is it with public domain examples how to connect to
a telephone exchange and  receive call data records in ASN.1 or AMA, parse
them and turn them into billing records, or whatever other boring
commercial application there is - I picked one from my industry here.

I don't doubt that LISP as a programming language will survive (it has
already survived for longer than most other languages). I am not a
developer anymore, I am managing developers to come up with commercially
viable solutions in the telecom industry. I am taking LISP into
consideration as a tool, for two reasons

a) the solutions we provide move towards rule-based systems, that can
quickly be "reconfigured" via rule-sets, rather than recoding, which is
still the norm and makes telecom companies inflexible, the more they
bought from different vendors. Proprietary protocols are still the norm in
telecommunications. The rule-based approach seems as if LISP was a first
choice implementation tool.

b) I had close encounters with LISP back at university many many years
ago, in a math class and my being impressed lasts up to the day some 16
years or so later.

This may speak in favour of LISP as a piece of great technology, already.

However, what counts for survival is whether or not it is commercially viable.

That is what I would wish I could hear the opinion of the LISP advocay
about as one aspect for my decision making whether or not to base a
project such as a mediation system (call collection, validation,
conversion, optional pre- and post processing for billing, distribution to
billing) or a fraud management system (I assume I don't have to explain
what that does).

any comments appreciated

regards
Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: How is Lisp doing?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-0108991923260001@194.163.195.67>
In article <································@ppp037-max03.twics.com>, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) wrote:

(I'm only responding to this on comp.lang.lisp and
I have changed the subject a bit.)

> - Will LISP "survive" in a commercial context ?

Sure.

> keywords: licensing problems with LISP images,

You can resolve these problems with your favorite vendor -
or even use a freely available one - if that's a possibility.

> LISP images reportedly
> being too heavy (is this a myth ?) etc.

I don't think this is a problem nowadays.

> On the Macintosh for example I was interested in MCL but their licensing
> policy, though it makes sense (Subscription based), is likely to put off
> anyone but die hard users of the language.

Hmm, I never really thought that the subscription idea really
worked. You can always buy single issues and use these without problems.
MCL versions are not really coming out every six months.
It has been a longer cycle.

Otherwise all users will tell you that it's a great product.

> - How competitive is LISP in terms of cross-platform portability ?
> 
> I believe the popularity of tools/languages like Perl or Java has to do to
> quite some level with the fact, that you can find a "runtime system" for
> almost any platform there is, even exotic ones, that pretty much run your
> code out of the box with very less or no porting effort.

Depends on what you want to achieve. If you have a specific
problem and then you want cross platform capability I
could answer the question. Until then your question is
a bit too general.

For example does your solution require real-time capabilities?
How would you get that portably?

But for a wide variety of problems you could find
a solution. Take for example CL-HTTP, a complex web server
written in Common Lisp - it has been ported to
all Lisp systems that offer networking (and preferably threading).
It runs on Genera, Windows 9x, WIndows NT, Unix and MacOS.
So you can then move application code between platforms 
with almost zero effort if you code it that way.

> - Is it easy to find code/docu for boring real-world commercial applications ?
> 
> Undoubtedly LISP has a great advantage four AI and Language
> processing/design. How is it with public domain examples how to connect to
> a telephone exchange and  receive call data records in ASN.1 or AMA, parse
> them and turn them into billing records, or whatever other boring
> commercial application there is - I picked one from my industry here.

No doubt such stuff has already been written. It might be possible
to buy such code. It shouldn't be that difficult to write
it yourself. The availability of code and documentation
depends also largely of the application domain you are thinking
of - for some area I expect you to find tons of stuff - code
that might not be available elsewhere - in others it's
more difficult - especially because companies who have been
using Lisp for many areas in the say last twenty years
haven't published their code.

> I don't doubt that LISP as a programming language will survive (it has
> already survived for longer than most other languages). I am not a
> developer anymore, I am managing developers to come up with commercially
> viable solutions in the telecom industry.

I guess people for example from Lucent could tell you more,
since they are using Lisp for a long time in this area and
they had a relatively large "research" project using
Lisp for switching systems.

> I am taking LISP into
> consideration as a tool, for two reasons
> 
> a) the solutions we provide move towards rule-based systems, that can
> quickly be "reconfigured" via rule-sets, rather than recoding, which is
> still the norm and makes telecom companies inflexible, the more they
> bought from different vendors. Proprietary protocols are still the norm in
> telecommunications. The rule-based approach seems as if LISP was a first
> choice implementation tool.

The question is whether a "rule-based" system really scales
and how you'd use it.

The Lucent system is running Lisp on the switching nodes and they
are using a message passing architecture. They
used Lisp just because of the dynamic features,
so they can reprogram the switch on the fly.

> That is what I would wish I could hear the opinion of the LISP advocay
> about as one aspect for my decision making whether or not to base a
> project such as a mediation system (call collection, validation,
> conversion, optional pre- and post processing for billing, distribution to
> billing)

I have written such a system myself for inhouse use. I'm working for an
ISP - so we had some special needs. At one time I was
looking at extending it to something that connects
to a telephone company, get CDRs and generates billing
information in a more general way (for our customers).
Seemed like a bit of programming, though not really difficult.

Often when I hear from other companies, they have written
their own billing system - additionally some billing systems
are on the market. I'd still consider it not a waste
of time to write my own. Though you might want
to get a few good Lisp programmers and this might
be more of a problem.

> or a fraud management system (I assume I don't have to explain
> what that does).

Stuff like that has been written and is in production use.
Originally American Express for example was using
a farm of Lisp machines to process the harder part
of their credit transactions. If my information
is correct, they still use a Lisp-based system
for that.

Another way would be to get contact to Lisp users in this
area would be to contact a few vendors.
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7o43e2$hb0$1@news.campuscwix.net>
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote in message
·····································@ppp037-max03.twics.com...
> [Anyone not interested in this off-topic excursion please move down one
page]
>
> > The term was first used to refer to the colonists in the years just
prior to
> > the American Revolution. Before then (when it was used, which was
apparently
> > not common) it referred to the Native Americans.
>
> I was more aiming at the fact, that they were called "Europeans" when they
> did bad things, but probably "Americans" when they had done good things.

I haven't really seen that. During the Indian Wars in the West, I've always
seen them called Americans or (less often) Euro-Americans (which I think is
just to heighten the distinction from Native Americans). African-Americans
were more often associated with the Indians (i.e., runaway slaves), though
after the Civil War the U.S. Army did field some black regiments (both foot
and cavalry) under white officers.

> > > They call us "Oh-Bei-Jin" = European-American-Person(s).
> >
> > My understanding is that an accurate translation of that term is a bit
less
> > flattering than that...
>
> Your understanding is wrong then. The translation is literal:
> "Oh" for Europe, "Bei" for America and "Jin" for Person(s).

I must've been confusing it with another term, then.

> The only flattening thing for you, perhaps is, that Europe comes first.
;-)
>
> BEI actually means Rice (in form of harvested crop) but has in this form
> turned into the meaning of America. This is because of the way you write
> America in chinese characters AH-MEI-LI-KA. The only distinctive character
> in there is MEI, BEI is a different pronounciation of that character (like
> multiple bindings for a variable in a programming language). The form
> nowadays used is short BEI-KOKU (Rice Country) for America. In China they
> use the character "Beautiful", pronounced MEI instead of "Rice", which
> also stems from AH-MEI-LI-KA, but this time the short form MEI-GUO means
> "Country of Beauty".
>
> When matching a foreign term to chinese characters the aim is always to
> find characters that do not only resemble the pronounciation but also have
> positive meanings. In Japan rice is a sacred commodity, the term rice
> country for America is an honour, not flattening at all. Characters chosen
> for other countries support this: England -> Brightness, Shining; France
> -> Religious, Buddha;
>
> Of particular interest in this context is the character for Germany. The
> original character, which is still being used in China means Morality,
> Virtue, Privilege. The new character used after a reform under American
> occupation means: bureaucratic, self righteous and dictatorial depending
> on context.
>
> As you can see the "flattening influence" here was american ;-) but you
> might perhaps argue that the Germans had deserved the loss of the
> character Morality in their country's name, having started two world wars
> and all the rest of it.
>
> This is not intended an offense. I myself would probably have left the
> Japanese their character for Germany, if just for the sake of
> compatibility with Chinese.

Thanks. Off-topic but very interesting.

Larry
From: Fernando Mato Mira
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A4C117.5EB7DF91@iname.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
> possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,

"dying" ?
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ACAECB.1BC0DDCB@gmx.de>
Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
> > possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,
> 
> "dying" ?

Actually, someone accused me of being "elitist" in an on-topic-response,
which I responded (off-topic) that those egalists who wrote the
declaration of independence did omit (among others) the Native Americans
of their equal born men list, which reads "all men are born equal", and
has been interpreted more like "all white male men are born equal" :-(.
Welcome on the Native American discussion which resulted of that.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ADEEEE.47F1@ieee.org>
Bernd Paysan wrote:
> 
> Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> >
> > > I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
> > > possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,
> >
> > "dying" ?
> 
> Actually, someone accused me of being "elitist" in an on-topic-response,
> which I responded (off-topic) that those egalists who wrote the
> declaration of independence did omit (among others) the Native Americans
> of their equal born men list, which reads "all men are born equal", and
> has been interpreted more like "all white male men are born equal" :-(.
> Welcome on the Native American discussion which resulted of that.
> 
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
> http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

Actually, it says that they are created equal, and refers to a Creator.
The word "born" isn't used. It doesn't try to demonstrate the
correctness of the assertion, but holds it to be "self evident". As a
declaration of independence, it was indeed a political document, but it
wasn't basically about human rights. Rather, it was about the rights the
colonials claimed for themselves.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908990632030001@ppp014-max03.twics.com>
In article <·············@ieee.org>, ·······@erols.com wrote:

> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > 
> > Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> > >
> > > Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
> > > > possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,
> > >
> > > "dying" ?
> > 
> > Actually, someone accused me of being "elitist" in an on-topic-response,
> > which I responded (off-topic) that those egalists who wrote the
> > declaration of independence did omit (among others) the Native Americans
> > of their equal born men list, which reads "all men are born equal", and
> > has been interpreted more like "all white male men are born equal" :-(.
> > Welcome on the Native American discussion which resulted of that.
> > 
> > --
> > Bernd Paysan
> > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
> > http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
> 
> Actually, it says that they are created equal, and refers to a Creator.
> The word "born" isn't used. It doesn't try to demonstrate the
> correctness of the assertion, but holds it to be "self evident". As a
> declaration of independence, it was indeed a political document, but it
> wasn't basically about human rights. Rather, it was about the rights the
> colonials claimed for themselves.

And did the colonials not have any women ?

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37AE1FA8.7CF@ieee.org>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> In article <·············@ieee.org>, ·······@erols.com wrote:
> 
> > Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > >
> > > Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
> > > > > possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,
> > > >
> > > > "dying" ?
> > >
> > > Actually, someone accused me of being "elitist" in an on-topic-response,
> > > which I responded (off-topic) that those egalists who wrote the
> > > declaration of independence did omit (among others) the Native Americans
> > > of their equal born men list, which reads "all men are born equal", and
> > > has been interpreted more like "all white male men are born equal" :-(.
> > > Welcome on the Native American discussion which resulted of that.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bernd Paysan
> > > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
> > > http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
> >
> > Actually, it says that they are created equal, and refers to a Creator.
> > The word "born" isn't used. It doesn't try to demonstrate the
> > correctness of the assertion, but holds it to be "self evident". As a
> > declaration of independence, it was indeed a political document, but it
> > wasn't basically about human rights. Rather, it was about the rights the
> > colonials claimed for themselves.
> 
> And did the colonials not have any women ?
> 
> Benjamin
> 
> --
> As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
> Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.

The exclusion of women from full civil rights came later. In the BofW,
"men" was short for "human kind". How would you interpret "mankind" in
today's context?  Back when radical feminism bordered on insanity
(occasionally crossing the border), a friend insisted that even "person"
was discriminitory. Why not "perdaughter"? When one is determined, it is
easy to find an insult.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990422390001@ppp041-max03.twics.com>
> The exclusion of women from full civil rights came later. In the BofW,
> "men" was short for "human kind". How would you interpret "mankind" in

Well, that's easy. Let me see ... All the macintosh users in the universe ? ;-)

> today's context?  Back when radical feminism bordered on insanity
> (occasionally crossing the border), a friend insisted that even "person"
> was discriminitory.

In fact he was right. Why is it Persona (lat.fem.) and not Personum (lat.nt.) ?

> Why not "perdaughter"?

that should be per filia then, the question is though "for whose daughter ?"

Never mind. Imagine they had worded it

"All men and women are created equal"

If that was true this planet would be quite a boring place, wouldn't it ?

;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Ken Deboy
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B24221.AE0C91CE@alternavision.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

-- snip --

> Never mind. Imagine they had worded it
>
> "All men and women are created equal"
>
> If that was true this planet would be quite a boring place, wouldn't it ?

Yes it would have been. If they'd been more concerned about political
correctness than breaking away from England, then today the entire
planet Earth could just be one big Glorious English colony, complete
with haughty accents. Hooligans and others who believed in liberty (as
opposed to freedom) could be drawn, quartered, and fed to pigs.
Right?
It;s really easy to second-guess people, isn't it...

Ken
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7q81b1.ccu.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:46:32 +0900, Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:
>Anyway, I had hoped to learn something about whether or not LISP has
>future. Is there anyone who could post a summary with that focus ?

I fail to see how LISP is dying.  With the likes of EMACS and GIMP, at the
very least, it will find application as a scripting language at a minimum.
And then you have the LISP die-hards who, like their Forth cousins, will
write and actively use/support their own compilers/interpreters.

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Bruce R. McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a52e36.8222503@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:46:32 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>I can't quite reconstruct how the Topic "Is LISP dying?" could have
>possibly eveolved into the fate of Native Americans,

	This is something which has left me amazed.


>however, it is quite interesting how things are being named ...

>The settlers who involved in disgraceful acts against humanity were
>referred to as "Europeans".

>Perhaps, if the subject was history to be proud of, these settlers would
>have been referred to as "Americans".

	Actually, the fact that the discussion has been about the
settlers and Native Americans rather than the pioneers and Native
Americans places it into a period when the residents of, e.g., the
British colonies in North America considered themselves English
(Scots, Welsch, etc.) in America.

>This makes me wonder, when did the European settlers actually turn into
>Americans ?

>Just wondering..., no offense intended.

	As Crazy Horse said, "my lands are where my dead lie buried".
Add the growing German immigration in the early 1700's, and the
growing numbers of second and third generation residents, and as
allegience to a distant European "mother country" waned, conditions
were ripe for the growth of American identity.

	At the very least, while the relationship between the European
settlers and Native Americans on the eastern seaboard were bad (most
American's don't even know what Prince Phillip's war was, and that in
per capita terms it was the bloodier than the Civil War), its seems
short odds that the later American pioneers were worse.  After all,
some partial official respect for treaties preventing the settlement
of the eastern Great Lakes was on  of the points of friction between
the mother country and the settlers.

	How does this tie in with Forth?  Is there a parallel in the
dilemma of outnumbered indigenous peoples whether to try to stand
alone (and possibly die out) or integrate (and possibly be lost in the
crowd), and the position of Forth?

	That's the only tie in I can see, since as far as I can tell
LISP aint dying.  Maybe its the fact that the original question was
relatively straightforward to handle that permitted the thread to
mutate in such a bizarre fashion.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0208991749250001@ppp017-max03.twics.com>
> >however, it is quite interesting how things are being named ...
> 
> >The settlers who involved in disgraceful acts against humanity were
> >referred to as "Europeans".
> 
> >Perhaps, if the subject was history to be proud of, these settlers would
> >have been referred to as "Americans".
> 
>         Actually, the fact that the discussion has been about the
> settlers and Native Americans rather than the pioneers and Native
> Americans places it into a period when the residents of, e.g., the
> British colonies in North America considered themselves English
> (Scots, Welsch, etc.) in America.

That's what I thought at first. But then again, there were enough
references suggesting a post independence war period to be included and
certainly the killing of native Americans didn't stop with the US coming
into existence.

Perhaps it is convenient for Americans to call their European brothers for
help when shouldering the burden of their not so heroic parts of history.

Also, I would like to remind you that the notation "English (Scotts,
Welsh)" may have gotten you into trouble in the UK as it could be
construed as the Scotts and Welsh being part of the English, they
vehemently would dismiss any such idea, alternatively, they wouldn't like
to be placed in parentheses if the English seem to dominate over the
content. :-)

it's like writing "the Yankees (Canadians, Mexicans)..."

 
>         How does this tie in with Forth?  Is there a parallel in the
> dilemma of outnumbered indigenous peoples whether to try to stand
> alone (and possibly die out) or integrate (and possibly be lost in the
> crowd), and the position of Forth?

Probably that is the message. Hopefully, the indians of the Forth and Lisp
tribes do not get wiped out this time around.

rgds
Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Martin Rodgers
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <MPG.120fb062a1449b1989fb3@news.demon.co.uk>
In article <································@ppp017-max03.twics.com>, 
···············@xntv.pbz says...

> "English (Scotts, Welsh)" 

[good points omitted]

AIUI, that should be Scots. Just the one 't'.

> it's like writing "the Yankees (Canadians, Mexicans)..."
 
This is why I try to be very relaxed about technical issues. There's 
enough _real_ politics to get hot under the collar about. For example, 
the island that I live on may sometimes be (incorrectly) called 
England, but to some it's also "the mainland". You don't get more 
political than that! Until programmers start kneecaping each other, 
I'm not going waste any time in language wars.

Lisp and Forth may be minority languages, but then so is any language 
not called Cobol. ;) You mentioned Welsh but were you thinking of the 
Welsh language? Is that dying? It's a contentious subject.
-- 
Please note: my email address is munged; You can never browse enough
         "There are no limits." -- tagline for Hellraiser
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0208992320210001@ppp033-max03.twics.com>
> > "English (Scotts, Welsh)" 

> AIUI, that should be Scots. Just the one 't'.

Boy - what a lapsus :-) :-) :-) My apologies. Must have been late... ;-)

> Lisp and Forth may be minority languages, but then so is any language 
> not called Cobol. ;)

Very true (infortunately IMHO).


benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: CsO
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7o4ngk$6bi$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote...
Martin Rodgers wrote:
>> Lisp and Forth may be minority languages, but then so is any language
>> not called Cobol. ;)
>Very true (infortunately IMHO).


ok, this thread has lost it already so i don't
feel too bad about adding more OT stuff...

is this 'more lines of COBOL than all...' bit
actually still true?
ok, when the only competition was FORTRAN,
LISP, ALGOL, PL/1, whatever, i'm sure it was
but in  1999?
naaa!
what do you think (or know)?
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A5E3AD.12EA@ieee.org>
CsO wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote...
> Martin Rodgers wrote:
> >> Lisp and Forth may be minority languages, but then so is any language
> >> not called Cobol. ;)
> >Very true (infortunately IMHO).
> 
> ok, this thread has lost it already so i don't
> feel too bad about adding more OT stuff...
> 
> is this 'more lines of COBOL than all...' bit
> actually still true?
> ok, when the only competition was FORTRAN,
> LISP, ALGOL, PL/1, whatever, i'm sure it was
> but in  1999?
> naaa!
> what do you think (or know)?

Old programs never die, never die, never die.
Old programs never die, they don't even* fade away.

*Remove "even" if you want it to scan.

I know a few programmers who have been working on Y2K issues for over a
year. Most of their HLL work has been on COBOL. Some of these programs
are so old that the documentation has been lost, and often nobody knows
all of their functions or interfaces. There are few enough COBOL
programmers left so that one of them came out of retirement to join the
fun. From this anecdotal evidence, I would say that COBOL is more alive
than Latin.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130301b3cce24d665a@195.138.129.108>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:                [1999-08-03 14:29 +0900]

  [...]
  > You'd be surprised how alive Latin is. I remember math classes at
  > university, especially analytical geometry where our professors
  > recommended tons of books for us to read and the only one that was neither
  > in Ancient Greek nor in Latin would have been someting in French by Blaise
  > Pascal. Not a single recommendation for a book in English and many of
  > those books didn't have a publicly accessible translation at all. The
  > Greek ones all had translations into Latin, though. ;-)

Consider how an Ancient Greek to Latin dictionary saves the need for
Ancient Greek to English, Ancient Greek to French, Ancient Greek to
German, etc...

  > Lingua latina vivanda est ;-)  -- no guarantees for grammatical correctness ;-)

I guess you mean `Lingua latina vivens est' or `Lingua latina vivit'
(no guarantees either).


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Lars Bj�nnes
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3wvvc8qey.fsf@enterprise.gdpm.no>
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:


> Consider how an Ancient Greek to Latin dictionary saves the need for
> Ancient Greek to English, Ancient Greek to French, Ancient Greek to
> German, etc...

But then again, consider the debate on the original translation of 
That Big Book often found in churches. :-) 

-- 
Lars
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A7FE7F.48BA96BD@pindar.com>
"Lars Bj�nnes" wrote:

> But then again, consider the debate on the original translation of That
> Big Book often found in churches. :-)

'Who's who in Church Life'? 'The Book of Common (Lisp) Prayer' or the
'Theological Yellow Pages'?
I couldn't work this one out?

:-) will
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lw4sigrkwd.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
······@gdpm.no (Lars Bj�nnes) writes:

> Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:
> 
> 
> > Consider how an Ancient Greek to Latin dictionary saves the need for
> > Ancient Greek to English, Ancient Greek to French, Ancient Greek to
> > German, etc...
> 
> But then again, consider the debate on the original translation of 
> That Big Book often found in churches. :-) 

You mean the Bhadgavad Gita?  (no guarantee of correctness either) :)

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130302b3cd8e7721c6@195.138.129.99>
Lars Bj¯nnes wrote:                [1999-08-03 22:14 +0000]

  > Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:
  > 
  > 
  > > Consider how an Ancient Greek to Latin dictionary saves the need for
  > > Ancient Greek to English, Ancient Greek to French, Ancient Greek to
  > > German, etc...
  > 
  > But then again, consider the debate on the original translation of 
  > That Big Book often found in churches. :-) 

One perhaps lesser known piece of this debate occurred in the 9th
century when St. Cyril and St. Methodius translated the Bible into
Old Bulgarian (a.k.a. Slavic-Bulgarian), as part of a missionary
effort sponsored by the Eastern Roman Empire and directed at the
Slavs (who at that time still had a single language, though in
different dialects (which later diverged into the various languages
of the Slavic family)).

At that time, there was the dogma of the three languages: only
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the Bible were accepted.
St. Cyril and St. Methodius visited Rome, and had extensive debates
there arguing against that dogma; eventually they managed to
convince the Pope who gave his blessing to the new translation,
thus officially acknowledging that other languages were also
appropriate for the Bible.


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3672v8pjg.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:

> One perhaps lesser known piece of this debate occurred in the 9th
> century when St. Cyril and St. Methodius translated the Bible into
> Old Bulgarian (a.k.a. Slavic-Bulgarian), as part of a missionary

Is this language also called Old Church Slavonic?

> effort sponsored by the Eastern Roman Empire and directed at the
> Slavs (who at that time still had a single language, though in
> different dialects (which later diverged into the various languages
> of the Slavic family)).
> 
> At that time, there was the dogma of the three languages: only
> Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the Bible were accepted.
> St. Cyril and St. Methodius visited Rome, and had extensive debates
> there arguing against that dogma; eventually they managed to
> convince the Pope who gave his blessing to the new translation,
> thus officially acknowledging that other languages were also
> appropriate for the Bible.

Most of the New Testament is written in Aramese IIRC.

-- 
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0508990701320001@ppp024-max03.twics.com>
> > At that time, there was the dogma of the three languages: only
> > Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the Bible were accepted.
> > St. Cyril and St. Methodius visited Rome, and had extensive debates
> > there arguing against that dogma; eventually they managed to
> > convince the Pope who gave his blessing to the new translation,
> > thus officially acknowledging that other languages were also
> > appropriate for the Bible.
> 
> Most of the New Testament is written in Aramese IIRC.

Large parts of the Old Testament appear to have a much more detailed
original in Sumerian. I know a UK scientist, his name is Alan Alford. He
has researched this for years and he has come up with some interesting, if
not mindboggling things.

For example, he says that the term rib in "God created Eve from Adam's
rib" is a translation error, when it was translated from Sumerian into
Hebrew. He says that the correct word was "life-essence" and that it got
confused because of a similar sounding word in Sumerian with the meaning
"rib".

He also pointed out that "God" in the Hebrew old testament is always
plural "The Gods" and that the word had its origin in Sumerian, meaning
"Aloft People". Most mindboggingly, he said the very detailed Sumerian
original would read as if it was a description of a cloning procedure and
"life-essence" could well mean DNA.

Who knows, maybe we got genetically engineered by Aliens, after all:

   "The Aloft People created Eve from Adam's DNA" :-)

I had his book, but I lent it to someone and never got it back :-(

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <867lnbm6al.fsf@g.local>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> He also pointed out that "God" in the Hebrew old testament is always
> plural "The Gods"

This is not true. The singular form "El" also occurs (as does another,
"Eloah"), and a number of other names -- all of them singular -- are
used to refer to God. And when God is referred to by a pronoun I think
it's always "he", not "they".

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0508991140260001@ppp038-max03.twics.com>
In article <··············@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
<················@pobox.com> wrote:

> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > He also pointed out that "God" in the Hebrew old testament is always
> > plural "The Gods"
> 
> This is not true. The singular form "El" also occurs (as does another,
> "Eloah"), and a number of other names -- all of them singular -- are
> used to refer to God. And when God is referred to by a pronoun I think
> it's always "he", not "they".

A friend of mine, Mr.Lindemann - well, you can see he is Jewish - has
confirmed that the plural form (Elohim?) *is* used throughout the OT (as
is the singular form). He also told me that this was a "problem" in the
teachings and that there are several strands, trying to explain the
"phenomenon" in different ways.

The Sumerian FAQ gives some insights. It states the book of Genesis has
roots in Sumerian records and that the Gods had an argument when they made
several "malformed humans". It refers to a goddess by the name of Ninti,
whose name is translated both as "Lady of the rib" and "She who creates
life" (life=rib?).

http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Ecbsiren/sumer-faq.html

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87r9lit3nb.fsf@2xtreme.net>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> In article <··············@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
> <················@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > 
> > > He also pointed out that "God" in the Hebrew old testament is always
> > > plural "The Gods"
> > 
> > This is not true. The singular form "El" also occurs (as does another,
> > "Eloah"), and a number of other names -- all of them singular -- are
> > used to refer to God. And when God is referred to by a pronoun I think
> > it's always "he", not "they".
> 
> A friend of mine, Mr.Lindemann - well, you can see he is Jewish - has
> confirmed that the plural form (Elohim?) *is* used throughout the OT (as
> is the singular form).

Elohim is indeed used throughout the Old Testament -- around 2700
times. It is not "the plural form of God." That's an incredibly naive
translation.

> He also told me that this was a "problem" in the teachings and that
> there are several strands, trying to explain the "phenomenon" in
> different ways.

If they did proper research then such things wouldn't be necessary.

Christopher
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <bE7q3.65992$AU3.1836709@news2.giganews.com>
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 07:01:32 +0900, Benjamin Kowarsch
<···············@xntv.pbz> wrote: 
>Large parts of the Old Testament appear to have a much more detailed
>original in Sumerian. I know a UK scientist, his name is Alan
>Alford. He has researched this for years and he has come up with some
>interesting, if not mindboggling things.

I also heard an interesting story once that Jesus didn't die, but
actually moved to France with Mary Magdalene, and had many
descendants.

There are a lot of stories like this; they unfortunately have a lot
more to do with X-File-like scenarios than anything else.
-- 
"The X-Files are too optimistic.  The truth is *not* out there..."
-- Anthony Ord <···@rollingthunder.co.uk>
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0508991309400001@ppp046-max03.twics.com>
> I also heard an interesting story once that Jesus didn't die, but
> actually moved to France with Mary Magdalene, and had many
> descendants.
> 
> There are a lot of stories like this; they unfortunately have a lot
> more to do with X-File-like scenarios than anything else.

The difference is though, that you cannot verify any of these "Jesus went
to Hollywood" stories. But you can verify the Sumerian records, they left,
I believe, about 120000 clay tablets and the language is well researched.
You can buy dictionaries and attend Sumerian classes at universities.

Given the evidence, I'd say that Alford's theory is probably plausible
enough to not simply be dismissed as fiction, he might well have a point
there.

Also, please note, that in western society everything which is in line
with official christian dogma is taken for granted, everything that might
challenge it is dismissed.

I live in Japan, which does not have a christian tradidtion and people
here do not see plausibility in christian teachings. They would rather
take the X-Files for granted and dismiss the bible as fiction instead.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87so5yt3we.fsf@2xtreme.net>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> > > At that time, there was the dogma of the three languages: only
> > > Hebrew, Greek, and Latin versions of the Bible were accepted.
> > > St. Cyril and St. Methodius visited Rome, and had extensive debates
> > > there arguing against that dogma; eventually they managed to
> > > convince the Pope who gave his blessing to the new translation,
> > > thus officially acknowledging that other languages were also
> > > appropriate for the Bible.
> > 
> > Most of the New Testament is written in Aramese IIRC.
> 
> Large parts of the Old Testament appear to have a much more detailed
> original in Sumerian. I know a UK scientist, his name is Alan Alford. He
> has researched this for years and he has come up with some interesting, if
> not mindboggling things.

There's been a lot of non-Lisp talk on comp.lang.lisp lately and I
haven't been real happy about it. There were over 100 posts yesterday
and it took me more than an hour to read most of it (with plenty of
skimming).

That said, I think I'll bite on this thread....

> For example, he says that the term rib in "God created Eve from Adam's
> rib" is a translation error, when it was translated from Sumerian into
> Hebrew. He says that the correct word was "life-essence" and that it got
> confused because of a similar sounding word in Sumerian with the meaning
> "rib".

The original manuscripts that later became what we know today as the
Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic/Chaldean and Greek. "Rib" as it
was used there is literally translated as "curve" as in "God created
Eve from the curve of Adam." The actual translation may have more of a
"life-essence" feeling to it. Some scholars believe that curve here
could refer to the double-helix of DNA but I think that might be
pushing it a bit.

> He also pointed out that "God" in the Hebrew old testament is always
> plural "The Gods" and that the word had its origin in Sumerian, meaning
> "Aloft People".

If he stated that it is "always plural 'The Gods'" then that pretty
much discredits him as one that has done proper research and that is
able to be taken seriously, unless you are misquoting him. Many, many
different words are used to refer to God. It's unfortunate that most
of them are just translated to "God" or "LORD" since you lose a lot of
meaning. The word he is talking about that he thinks refers to "The
Gods" is "Elohim" and no, it does not mean "The Gods." It is difficult
to precisely translate Elohim and what exactly it means is dependant
on the context in which it is used. It can be both singular and
plural, and when it is plural it refers to something like "God and his
children." More specifically it often means "God and the angels."
Elohim also describes an aspect of one's relationship with God or an
aspect of God, as many of the ways of saying "God" do. Specifically,
Elohim means "God, as the creator" and it describes the relationship
of those he created as being his children ("God and his children").

In Genesis 1:1 where it says "In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth", the word used for God here in the original Hebrew is
Elohim, which is to say "God the creator." This is certainly a
singular usage, but it describes a plural relationship, if that makes
sense. In Genesis 1:26 where it says "And God said, Let _us_ make man
in _our_ image, after _our_ likeness..." the word is also Elohim and
this time it is used plurally to mean "God and the angels."

The name of God is locked into the Hebrew manuscript version of the
book of Esther via a numerical code so that it would always be
preserved so that some person couldn't go back with Emacs and
query-replace (figuratively speaking) the name of God with something
else sometime in the future. The name of God directly transliterated
is "YHVH" (remember there are no vowels). The pronounciation of that
is three syllables and is like "Yah-huh-vay", not "Yah way" and
certainly not "Jehovah" (there is no "j" sound in Hebrew!). Similarly,
Jesus is actually "Yeshuah" or "Yashuah."

Christopher
[Who is not yet a true Bible scholar, but plays one on the net sometimes.]
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <37abadeb.175829078@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:23:57 GMT, ······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R.
Barry) wrote:

>The original manuscripts that later became what we know today as the
>Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic/Chaldean and Greek.

Possibly so, but as the Ut-Napishtim / Noah story demonstrates, there
*are* strong Summerian influences in some texts of the OT. So it's not
illogical to think that the use of some words could be a bad
translation from the Summerian. Also (though I'm not entirely sure)
I've read sometimes that "Belzebu" (I don't know the proper English
spelling, sorry) is a joke meaning The Lord of the Flies, because
Sumerians had a good named "Baal zevuv", meaning "The Lord of Lords",
and the sounds are similar.

>It is difficult to precisely translate Elohim and what exactly it
>means is dependant on the context in which it is used.

<snip>

>In Genesis 1:1 where it says "In the beginning God created the
>heaven and the earth", the word used for God here in the original
>Hebrew is Elohim, which is to say "God the creator."

That seems like a circular reasoning to me. Maybe in modern usage we
can interpret those words like you say, because we're reading the
Bible a posteriori, but are there any other contemporary (to the OT)
usages of Elohim, etc. that suggest that it meant other than "The
Gods"? Other than the Bible, I mean.

>The name of God directly transliterated is "YHVH" (remember there
>are no vowels).

I always thought the Tetragrammaton was a way to refer to God because
his name couldn't (shouldn't) be said aloud...


                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN6qim/4C0a0jUw5YEQILFwCgg4tZIQcyAv300EDbBJ/TNRcMd8QAoJQc
Ire31/fjdPED3annU09mR1VX
=4c/4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908990529010001@ppp002-max03.twics.com>
> > For example, he says that the term rib in "God created Eve from Adam's
> > rib" is a translation error, when it was translated from Sumerian into
> > Hebrew. He says that the correct word was "life-essence" and that it got
> > confused because of a similar sounding word in Sumerian with the meaning
> > "rib".
> 
> The original manuscripts that later became what we know today as the
> Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic/Chaldean and Greek. "Rib" as it
> was used there is literally translated as "curve" as in "God created
> Eve from the curve of Adam." The actual translation may have more of a
> "life-essence" feeling to it. Some scholars believe that curve here
> could refer to the double-helix of DNA but I think that might be
> pushing it a bit.

The question here is whether these are originals or again "copies" of
older, more original texts. As far as Genesis is concerned it is
undisputed, that it has its roots in Sumerian records, which are older
than the manuscripts we generally acknowledge as orginals for the Bible.

The Sumerian story of the creation of humankind is not only much more
detailed it is also less fuzzy. It is down to the precise description of
things that we would not easily accept to have taken place in ancient
history, that we have simply categorised those decriptions as mythology.

This, despite the fact, that the Sumerians have left us an immense number
of records that are of a secular nature. Descriptions about their
language, their life, transaction records describing their economic
activity, their knowldege of science and history and arts. Only when they
describe things too difficult for us to accept is this material
categorised as mythology, thus fiction.

Yes, there is scholars who adhere to the notion of mythologising, but
there is also scholars who take another look and find they have a
different view.
The creation of humankind is one such controversial item.

The Sumerian records do state that "The Alofted" have created humans, the
procedure of which appears to be described in quite some detail, whatever
way one may interpret it. Also, it is very interesting, that the Sumerian
records quote that "The Alofted" have created "malformed humans" and got
into an argument over it.

As these "Alofted" have been interpreted as Gods or Deities, which later
led in the hebrew version to terms such as "God the creator" it is quite
astonishing to see, that those Gods have failed to do the job right first
time and that they created "malformed humans" and had an argument.

This is not today's concept of an all mighty god. This looks more like
flesh and blood gods of some kind closer to the human kind, as they can
fail. And throughout the Sumerian records the deities make a lot of
mistakes, which may indicate that not all of this is mythology.

Even more interesting is what linguists have come up with. Sumerian is
quite well understood and it is quite close to modern Hungarian, as much
as many words can still be recognised in Hungarian.

Where scholars have mythologised their records and interpreted several
entities as gods, the Hungarian words of those roots mean things like
Governor, Counsellor, Hero etc.

Linguists have also shown how the angels of the bible, could be traced
back to Sumerian deities by examining their names. The names of the
archangels generally end in EL (Micha-el, Gabri-el, Uri-el) the title
which identifies them as members of the "alofted". Sumerian is an
agglutinative language (Hungarian, Finnish, Turkish, Japanese language
family) where modifiers are appended to the end of a grammatical
construct, similar to postfix notation. In various articles from lingustic
scholars, that I found on the web by using a search engine Gabri-el is
being identified with Ninti, the lady of life, who created the humans in
the Sumerian records.

I found at least one place where Yaweh the one and only god of the
Israelites was identified with Ra the Egyptian Deity. I remember that
Jewish people have told me Yahweh means something like "I am who I am", in
other words it means "My name is none of your business". And in fact Ra as
well as the Yahweh in the bible is not really described as a friendly God.
For an "alofted governor" in charge of Egypt, it would have certainly been
detrimental to winning the Israelites as followers had they known that he
was also a god of their arch enemy. A motive for making a mystery of one's
identity when applying for the position of the one and only god of Israel.

I am not saying that all this must have been that way. All I am saying is,
that looking at a more secular interpretation of ancient mythology as
suggested by a number of scholars makes mysteries suddenly fall into place
and we should not refute them simply because they are in conradiction with
our established religious interpretation of ancient records, as a
religious interpretation cannot be taken for granted either.

> 
> > He also pointed out that "God" in the Hebrew old testament is always
> > plural "The Gods" and that the word had its origin in Sumerian, meaning
> > "Aloft People".
> 
> If he stated that it is "always plural 'The Gods'" then that pretty
> much discredits him as one that has done proper research and that is
> able to be taken seriously, unless you are misquoting him.

I have probably misquoted him there, it's been a while since I read his book.

> It is difficult
> to precisely translate Elohim and what exactly it means is dependant
> on the context in which it is used. It can be both singular and
> plural, and when it is plural it refers to something like "God and his
> children." More specifically it often means "God and the angels."
> Elohim also describes an aspect of one's relationship with God or an
> aspect of God, as many of the ways of saying "God" do. Specifically,
> Elohim means "God, as the creator" and it describes the relationship
> of those he created as being his children ("God and his children").

Which confirms that it is open to interpretation. The term "God and the
Angels" pretty much falls in line with the Sumerian "The Alofted".
 
> In Genesis 1:1 where it says "In the beginning God created the heaven
> and the earth", the word used for God here in the original Hebrew is
> Elohim, which is to say "God the creator."

This is our established interpretation, it is by no means clear that this
is an acurate translation. It is what we have come to believe that it
should mean.

But now there is linguists and historians, who try to find out where it
came from and one of the plausible possibilities is that the word has its
roots in Sumerian for "The Alofted".

We cannot be certain of either of these models. Maybe researchers will
find an answer someday. I for my part take it as an interesting
contribution and I take neither view for granted. However, I made a mind
experiment. I said to myself, what if...

what if there was a flesh and blood god humankind civilisation that has
mastered genetic engineering. We are ourselves working on getting there -
the human genome project is currently decoding human DNA and they are said
to finish by the year 2003.

In fifty or hundered years, if we were to send astronauts on a very
advanced mission into outer space, we would probably genetically engineer
our astronauts such that they'd gain longevity. If these astronauts came
back 100000 years or whenever later only to find their home planet
restored to wild life, they might start recolonising it again. Having
travelled for such a long time with all the technological convenience,
they'd not be used to hard work and it appears plausible, they might get
tempted to clone workers from a wild pre homo sapiens species and their
own DNA. They would probably create a number of mutants in the course of
it and get into an argument whether this was all such a good idea in the
first place. Eventually they would succeed and colonise the planet living
in luxury while the workers do the work.

As they were astronauts, they would probably lack the political leader
skills. They'd show off their superiority too much and take the females of
their workers as sex companions, which would result in
half-god-half-worker off-spring to live astonishingly long questioning
their superiority and after a while they'd have trouble to keep their
workers under control. They would flood the planet to get rid of most of
those rebellious workers, but a few selected loyal ones to start over.

From then on, they would have learned their lesson and establish proper
distance by mystifying themselves and impress their workers with
demonstrations of super-human power. They would also keep a pretty tight
privacy, so that the workers are left in doubt about what their gods
really are. They would tell them, that it is forbidden to make a picture
of a god so they cannot be identified easily.

After a while there might be quite some competition for followers and gods
with the most spectacular demonstration of power, the most mystical air
and strictest rules as to following any other gods may prove most
succesful in acquiring followership.

Maybe they would get bored and leave to travel through space again, maybe
they would have to call a truce to leave the planet alone for a while,
maybe they would find another planet that was more their cup of tea or
maybe they would all die in an accident on their spaceship. Who knows.

While this doesn't prove anything, it is plausible. This mind experiment
showed me, that we ***could*** have been hoaxed for a few thousand years.
It *could* have been that way or similar and we should be open minded
about the possibility that our history may have to be rewritten some day.


> The name of God is locked into the Hebrew manuscript version of the
> book of Esther via a numerical code so that it would always be
> preserved so that some person couldn't go back with Emacs and
> query-replace (figuratively speaking) the name of God with something
> else sometime in the future.

I like that bit :-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7r9ldqi7b.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
> Even more interesting is what linguists have come up with. Sumerian is
> quite well understood and it is quite close to modern Hungarian, as much
> as many words can still be recognised in Hungarian.

this surprises me greatly: I thought Hungarian belonged to the indo-european
group, Sumerian to the Semitic group. 

> In fifty or hundered years, if we were to send astronauts on a very
> advanced mission into outer space, we would probably genetically engineer
> our astronauts such that they'd gain longevity. 

This is a very unlikely thing to be possible in the future.

> They would flood the planet to get rid of most of
> those rebellious workers, but a few selected loyal ones to start over.

Geological evidence is mounting that around 5,600 BC, the Black Sea stopped
being an inland sea, being flooded by the higher-lying Mediterranean Sea
breaking through a natural dam at the Bosporus.

> They would tell them, that it is forbidden to make a picture of a god so
> they cannot be identified easily.

other religions (Islam and early Buddhism) also forbid graphic
representations of their sacred 'entities'. There are other than forensic
reasons for this commandment. 

> maybe they would find another planet that was more their cup of tea or
> maybe they would all die in an accident on their spaceship.  Who knows.

Indeed.

> While this doesn't prove anything, it is plausible. 

For certain (rather implausible) values of 'plausible', yes ;-)

This stuff was all dished out by the infamous Erich von^H^H^H D�niken in the
'70ies.  He also described the Mali Dogon people who depict 'astronauts' and
'spaceships' in their ancient art and rituals, and apparently know that
Sirius was a double star system.

All this stuff is interesting, but usually not falsifiable, and therefore
suspect. 

                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908992352250001@ppp015-max03.twics.com>
> I thought Hungarian belonged to the indo-european
> group, Sumerian to the Semitic group. 

Absolutely not.

Both Hungarian and Sumerian belong to the Uralo-Altaic group of languages.
Other prominent members of this group are Turkish, Finnish and Japanese.

These languages are quite different from Indo-European and Semitic
languages, as they are agglutinative, which means their grammar is based
on a concept by which any grammatical object can be modified by a postfix
modifier, the result of which can itself again be modified by a postfix
modifier.

You can compare that to the postfix notation of Forth, Postscript or HP
calculator's RPN scripting, but in terms of extensibility of expressions
or objects more like a postfix form of Lisp, that is entirely turned
upside down, where names of functions appear as the last element of a list
expression, car returns the last element of a list and cons inserts at the
end of a list etc etc.

The semantics of agglutinative languages are "coded" into a matrix of
modifiers, comparable to the way opcodes and addressing modes in various
machine languages with variable length opcodes and orthogonal instruction
sets are assigned.

I will provide examples for Japanese, as this is the language in this
group I know most about - the same principles apply for other languages of
the group.

The matrix in Japanese

     A   I   U   E   O
K    KA  KI  KU  KE  KO
S    SA  SHI SU  SE  SO

etc etc

Any grammatical form such as negative, conditional, passive etc is formed
by appending a modifier derived from a particular coloumn in the matrix or
a combination thereof.

for example the passive from is derived by transposing the simple form (U
coloumn) to the A coloumn, appending RE and finally appending another
simple form modifier RU.

; the verb to see
(passive-of (mi ru)) => (mi ra re ru)

; the verb to hear
(passive-of (ki ku)) => (ki ka re ru)

Note, that the last modifier "RU" allows to modify this new form just like
any infinitive form and in fact the passive form itself becomes a new
infinitive form. You could theoretically create the passive of the passive
form. In fact there is grammatical forms where such a modification is
carried out repetitive.

a few examples of modifications of modifications...

; some polite forms of the verb to see
(polite-of (mi ru)) => (mi ma su)
(polite-of (passive-of (mi ru))) => (mi ra re ma su)

; some very polite forms of the verb to see
(very-polite-of (mi ru)) => (mi ru ko to de go za i ma su)
(very-polite-of (passive-of (mi ru))) => (mi ra re ru ko to de go za i ma su) 


Due to the flexibility of this concept, creating new forms by modifying
and expanding basic ones there is a vast number of grammatical forms that
do not have an equivalent in languages of other groups (like Indo-European
or Semitic).

Examples of such forms are:

I-thought-I-did-but-it-appears-I-forgot form
It-looks-as-if-but-it-may-not-be form
It-looks-as-if-but-it-is-not form

Again, the wealth of forms can be compared to Lisp's richness, which can
be attributed to the very same kind of extensibility.

Forms like these and others are true grammatical forms of a verb, they are
not like in languages of other families expressions, subexpressions or
nested sentences and phrases.

This makes these languages very distinct from other languages.

As an interesting aside, the Klingon language developed by Prof.Okrand for
Paramount Studios, while not truly an agglutinative language as it uses
both prefixes and suffixes, uses a number of concepts found in the
Uralo-Altaic group. Verbs in Klingon contain both subject and object and
thus a verb can form an entire sentence, just like verbs in languages of
the Uralo-Altaic group.

Apart from a number of loan words, Hungarian has no relationship
whatsoever with languages of its neighbour's in Europe (other than the
remote neighbour Turkey).

Sumerian has had a strong impact on Semitic languages by providing loan
words and writing system, even some English words are believed to be of
Sumerian origin, such as the word BAR in lawyer's bar association.
However, Sumerian does not have any relationships with Semitic languages.

for a diagram that shows language relationships visit

   http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible and languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130305b3d4d22e9b9a@195.138.129.104>
  > On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 23:52:25 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
  > Kowarsch) wrote:
  > 
  > >Both Hungarian and Sumerian belong to the Uralo-Altaic group
  > >of languages.

Sumerian too?

My New Webster's Dictionary, College Edition, says that Sumerian
is the same as Babylonian which is classified as Northeastern
Semitic in the Hamito-Semitic family (different from the
Uralo-Altaic family).


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible and languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990550590001@ppp041-max03.twics.com>
> My New Webster's Dictionary, College Edition, says that Sumerian
> is the same as Babylonian which is classified as Northeastern
> Semitic in the Hamito-Semitic family (different from the
> Uralo-Altaic family).

For all I can tell, your Your New Webster's is wrong then.

However, I can explain how this lapsus might have happened:

The Sumerian cuneiform writing system, which was pictorial and therefore
not based on representation of sounds but representation of ideas had
later been adopted by several Semitic languages, most prominently
Babylonian.

Babylonian is therefore written in Sumerian (the writing system) and that
can lead to confusion as to what Sumerian is. However, the language itself
is an agglutinative language of the Uralo-Altaic family.

As an aside, it is not uncommon for pictorial writing systems to be
adopted by other languages that have nothing in common with the language
they borrowed the writing system from. Japanese, which is unrelated to
Chinese has adopted the Chinese writing system, which is pictorial.

If you are interested in the relationships between Uralo-Altaic languages visit

   http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm

also, there are some interesting links to explore Sumerian at

   http://www.primenet.com/~seagoat/sumerian/sumlinks.htm

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: Bible and languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b4f4ae.29389079@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 23:52:25 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>Both Hungarian and Sumerian belong to the Uralo-Altaic group
>of languages.

Not a few magyar linguists seem to discuss the attribution of
Hungarian to the Uralo-Altaic family...

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN67m6P4C0a0jUw5YEQJzYQCfekk8JjKnKtn7NWltATQN3GCM13sAoN5g
CVsrFkys1A6nVOywAkLIRLvz
=UHKx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible and languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37AF4298.E9ABCF3C@fisec.com>
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 23:52:25 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
> Kowarsch) wrote:
> 
> >Both Hungarian and Sumerian belong to the Uralo-Altaic group
> >of languages.
> 
> Not a few magyar linguists seem to discuss the attribution of
> Hungarian to the Uralo-Altaic family...

Warning: follow-ups directed to alt.soc.magyar.

Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian (plus a few languages spoken by a few
thousand people) belong to the Finno-Ugrian language family, which is
disjoint to the Indo-European language family, according to the received
science.  There are unconfirmed, creative ideas about sumerian (or other
lingua de jour) relations outside university research.

In Europe, only these languages and Bask are not Indo-European.

Hungarian verbs are conjugated both prefix and postfix (usually 0-1
prefix and 0-unlimited postfix).
Examples for postfixes: tense, conditional, negation, pronoun indicator,
adjective indicator...

Here's an extreme verb: elkelkaposztasitottalanitottatok
                        p-v----------pp-p--p---p-p--pp--

Don't worry, peope don't often use more than 1-4 postfixes :-)

which falls far short of some Welsh village names, which are typically
words combined rather than conjugated verbs.

English only has -s, -d and -ing,  as well as a few others like -ful,
-less, -dom, -hood; complexity comes with prepostitons, phrasal verbs
and mostly irregular idioms.

Another interesting property of Hungarian is that the verb, object and
subject may often be in any order, as order rarely encodes more than
emphasis.

Regards
Robert
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible and languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990805050001@ppp016-max03.twics.com>
In article <·················@fisec.com>, ·······@fisec.com wrote:

> Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 23:52:25 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
> > Kowarsch) wrote:
> > 
> > >Both Hungarian and Sumerian belong to the Uralo-Altaic group
> > >of languages.
> > 
> > Not a few magyar linguists seem to discuss the attribution of
> > Hungarian to the Uralo-Altaic family...
> 
> Warning: follow-ups directed to alt.soc.magyar.
> 
> Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian (plus a few languages spoken by a few
> thousand people) belong to the Finno-Ugrian language family

Finno-Ugrian is often used synonym to the term "Uralic"
The Uralic and Altaic families are represented in the Uralo-Altaic group.

All of those are agglutinative langugaes as opposed to the Indo-European
languages which are inflected languages.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible and languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990440500001@ppp041-max03.twics.com>
> >Both Hungarian and Sumerian belong to the Uralo-Altaic group
> >of languages.
> 
> Not a few magyar linguists seem to discuss the attribution of
> Hungarian to the Uralo-Altaic family...

based on what aspect of the attribution ?

Certainly not because of grammar or vocabulary.

Hungarian is a true agglutinative language, its garmmar sharing the
attributes of agglutinative grammar with the other languages in the group.
This can certainly not be the reason to argue against attribution.

A comparison of word stems and morphemes shows a vast base of common roots
between all the languages, especially Hungarian and Sumerian. Here again,
this cannot be the reason to argue against attribution.

Maybe this is politically motivated (a country that is eager to join the
EU certainly wouldn't want to be associated with Turkey and other
ex-European cultures)

Maybe they have come up with a different way of classification.

The relationships and similarities between Hungarian and Sumerian (and
other members of the group) will remain nevertheless.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b4e05f.89721292@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 04:40:50 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>based on what aspect of the attribution ?
>
>Certainly not because of grammar or vocabulary.

Grammar *and* vocabulary. Being agglutinative is not proof enough,
because there are other agglutinative languages not related to the
Uralo-Altaic group (the Yupik and Inuit languages, of the Eskimo-Aleut
family, come to mind. And Basque is also agglutinative, sort of).

>A comparison of word stems and morphemes shows a vast base of common
>roots between all the languages, especially Hungarian and Sumerian.

Well, after reading yesterday's messages I did look for "Hungarian" +
"Sumerian" and came with a few pages discussing the attribution of
Hungarian to that group.

>Maybe this is politically motivated

OTOH, having political motivations doesn't mean that there aren't any
linguistic ones.

>The relationships and similarities between Hungarian and Sumerian
>(and other members of the group) will remain nevertheless.

I'm not convinced of that, either. OTOH, I'm not a linguistic scholar.

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN6/VWf4C0a0jUw5YEQKAqgCgt91Yv9WMuMaeWILa21HJR01EfrEAoKXu
C/ScrgFcNl0dlUi+mkVkcDsO
=J6KM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1108990426330001@ppp015-max03.twics.com>
> [...] Being agglutinative is not proof enough,

There are more common attributes than just being agglutinative. I know of
a number of comparisons between Hungarian and other UA languages, such as
Japanese, where grammatical structure matches exactly and words are
similar enough to be traced to a common origin.

Fred Hamori, maintains comparison charts on his "Hungarian Heritage" web site

   http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia

In many cases it is known how various sounds shifted (for example p -> v),
this makes it often even more obvious, as after accounting for the sound
shift you quite often get the exact same stem.


Remind you, that the suggested Hungarian Sumerian connection is based on
excavations of objects in Transylvania of magyar origin with cuneiform
writing on it. This is a very strong evidence on top of the fact that the
languages have enough in common already to suggest a connection.

When you mentioned this, I thought you had digged up something new, such
as a new classification system into subgroups etc (ie. a higher
resolution).
However, this doesn't seem to be the case. It is a very old issue, going
back to the Habsburg empire, when the attribution was first established.
The Hungarians felt humiliated, because their language wasn't in the
Indo-European group (emphasis on European). If you look at the history of
Hungary you will find that after their medieval Empire collapsed, they
were constantly striving for recognition as a *European* Nation. In a way
they still are.

Also, agglutinative languages in general have often been considered
"primitive" as opposed to "advanced" Indo-European languages.

But this is like saying LISP is a primitive language compared to C++,
because it is older and it doesn't follow the paradigm of the day. In many
ways you can compare agglutinative grammar to LISP or FORTH. It is a more
universal way to express semantics and it offers great flexibility for
variation. This way you can argue that agglutinative grammar, like LISP or
FORTH, is more advanced than inflected grammar, like Algol style syntax.

The languages I use most are English (inflected) and Japanese
(agglutinative). The formal languages I used when developing software were
Pascal and Modula-2, for solving math LISP, FORTH and HP's RPN calculator
scripting. I believe I can can say I am quite familiar with the different
models, and I definitely do not share the view that agglutinative
languages are primitive, nor do I share the view that C++ or Java are more
advanced than LISP or FORTH, just because they showed up later.

Think about it, agglutinative grammar allows to combine Subject and Object
in the verb, and Hungarian makes a lot of use of this (therefore the long
verbs). In a way this is comparable to object oriented programming, which
is a very recent buzzword. If the Hungarian linguists get the message,
they might soon queue in to firmly attest, that there was never ever any
doubt about the fact that their language is part of the UA group and as a
result is as "advanced" as modern computer technology's latest wisdom, as
opposed to the rather "boring" Indo-European languages.

Unless any of these linguists come up with a new and reasonable
classification model after which Hungarian is located outside the UA
group, the current classification, where it is in should be regarded as
valid.

Simply stating someone doesn't like it without telling why, is not really
a great argument, is it ?!
 
Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B0B1C9.85411CC9@fisec.com>
Way too off-topic, so please stop reading immediately and be a good lisp
gardener. This is my last posting in this thread because of this, but
silence on off-topic items does not mean approval.

Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > [...] Being agglutinative is not proof enough,
> 
> There are more common attributes than just being agglutinative. I know of
> a number of comparisons between Hungarian and other UA languages, such as
> Japanese, where grammatical structure matches exactly and words are
> similar... 

Yes, a lot of similarities may exist.

> ...enough to be traced to a common origin.

The inherent rule of scientific research is that researchers should be
able to reach the same conclusions based on evidences.

As linguistics and history are soft sciences, it's difficult to validate
and invalidate hypotheses and reach a practically broad consensus, but
science is 'positive' in that it only accepts validated ones, and does
not accept non-validated, non-invalidated claims (like the existence of
a God or sumerian roots*).

* The difference is that religious beliefs can not be proven or
invalidated by their very nature; language origins are often 'just'
practically impossible to prove (based on a generic function of the
hypothesis, the date of the research and the time horizon of research in
the past).

Practically, from time to time, it has been fashionable to attribute
Sumerian origins of Hungarian - unfortunately, it is often called
'science' where it should rather be called 'hypothesis'.  No Sumerian
origins or Japanese ties are accepted by Finno-Ugristic language
departments at universities in Hungary or elsewhere (its opposite is
probably also unproven), even if it would be rather cool :-)

Regards
Robert
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991533300001@ppp040-max03.twics.com>
> No Sumerian origins ...

connection/relation - not origin !

> ... or Japanese ties are accepted by Finno-Ugristic language
> departments at universities in Hungary or elsewhere

Not quite right. Noone disputes that Hungarian is a member of the
Uralo-Altaic group, controversial is only, whether it is a sub-group on
its own or part of the Finno-Ugrian sub-group. In other words *when* did
it descent from the proto language and how. Japanese is undisputed and
Sumerian is considered a very early descendent of the proto language. 

have a look at Fred Hamori's Hungarian Heritage page at

    http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/language.htm

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <C7js3.41427$5r2.78594@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>
In article <································@ppp015-max03.twics.com>,
	···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
> ...
> Remind you, that the suggested Hungarian Sumerian connection is based on
> excavations of objects in Transylvania of magyar origin with cuneiform
> writing on it. This is a very strong evidence on top of the fact that the
> languages have enough in common already to suggest a connection.

This evidence can't be very strong:  As far as I know, the Hungarians
settled in Hungary about AD 300 or 400 (aren't they descendents of the
Huns?), coming almost straight out of Central Asia.  The Sumerian
culture developed in Mesopotamia and ended a few hundred years BC, with
(to my knowledge) very little indication where the Sumerians yhad
migrated from.  Hungarians and Sumerians mught share common ancestors,
but that should be about the extent of their connection.

> ...

-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B1C929.78EBB4EC@fisec.com>
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
...
> (aren't they descendents of the
> Huns?), 

No, Huns were displaced by Hungarians, although the name got associated
with Hungarians in Latin.

Robert
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991354090001@ppp042-max03.twics.com>
In article <·····················@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
··@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) wrote:

> In article <································@ppp015-max03.twics.com>,
>         ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
> > ...
> > Remind you, that the suggested Hungarian Sumerian connection is based on
> > excavations of objects in Transylvania of magyar origin with cuneiform
> > writing on it. This is a very strong evidence on top of the fact that the
> > languages have enough in common already to suggest a connection.
> 
> This evidence can't be very strong:  As far as I know, the Hungarians
> settled in Hungary about AD 300 or 400 (aren't they descendents of the
> Huns?), coming almost straight out of Central Asia.  The Sumerian
> culture developed in Mesopotamia and ended a few hundred years BC, with
> (to my knowledge) very little indication where the Sumerians yhad
> migrated from.  Hungarians and Sumerians mught share common ancestors,
> but that should be about the extent of their connection.

Please note, that if languages are related to each other, it does not mean
that the people who spoke/speak those languages are
related/ancestors/descendants.

Languages tend to merge when a defeated people adopt the language of the
dominant people or if a people migrate into a different area and get into
contact with other cultures.

This is still happening today. A Japanese dictionary of foreign/western
loanwords (Katakana dictionary) is as thick as the dictionary with native
terms and the advent/use of the passive form in modern Japanese is
commonly attributed to European influence. Tagalog is another interesting
example, as the language has a tremendously strong Spanish influence but
the Fillipinos as a people are not related to any Latin or Spanish people.
Spanish itself has Arabic influences and French is a result of the attempt
by the Celts and Franks to speak Latin. Only the advent of the nation in
recent history has given us a perception of one nation - one people - one
language - one ancestry.

In the case of the Hungarians it is not exactly known where they came
from. However, there is an interesting discussion of hungarian history at

   http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/history.htm

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b69649.267348757@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:54:09 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>Please note, that if languages are related to each other, it does
>not mean that the people who spoke/speak those languages are
>related/ancestors/descendants.

<snip>

>Spanish itself has Arabic influences

But you can't argue that Spanish people is not (genetically) related
to arabs. The arab occupation of the Iberic Peninsula lasted almost
800 years. There was a lot of arab settlements and, in fact, when
arabs were thrown off much of that population didn't leave the
Peninsula (thought they were forced to become christians).

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7KJdP4C0a0jUw5YEQKtZQCfXJRNvCkiAMBkPr3zWJMXxkjNtwMAoJ0y
dDrFD11LoJydeBJ9T/dtxG7i
=v1vt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: languages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408990326390001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
> But you can't argue that Spanish people is not (genetically) related
> to arabs. The arab occupation of the Iberic Peninsula lasted almost

Sure, where different races meet they will mix to some level, but the
point was that when languages are adopted or mix, that the people speaking
those languagese need not necessarily be related.

Maybe some languages are more attractive than the sex appeal of their
speakers :-)

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b3435a.180588893@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 04:26:33 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>Fred Hamori, maintains comparison charts on his "Hungarian Heritage"
>web site
>
>   http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia
>

Thanks. I'll check into it.

But please note that I'm not negating or asserting the relation
between Sumerian, Hungarian, Basque and/or Japanese, nor saying that
Hungarian was not a Uralo-Altaic language. I was just saying that
seems to be a lot of controversy around those issues.

Also, I've never read good arguments for Japanese or Basque being
related to any other language (or among them, of course).

>Remind you, that the suggested Hungarian Sumerian connection is based
>on excavations of objects in Transylvania of magyar origin with
>cuneiform writing on it.

Do you have an URL for this? (Not questioning you, just curious about
it.)

>The Hungarians felt humiliated, because their language wasn't in the
>Indo-European group (emphasis on European).

As I said, politics can explain why some interpretations are made, but
it won't change facts, if those facts do exist. In Spain, politics
from Valencia (an autonomous community) try to negate the fact that
the "valenci�" language is a dialect of Catalonian, but most
linguists, even from Valencia, say otherwise.

>Also, agglutinative languages in general have often been considered
>"primitive" as opposed to "advanced" Indo-European languages.

I wasn't implying that, not at all. In fact, it could be argued that
modern flexive IE languages seem primitive if compared with the
ordered structure of sanskrit, or even latin :)

Of course "primitive" and "advanced" are meaningless words when
referring to languages, IMO.

>Unless any of these linguists come up with a new and reasonable
>classification model after which Hungarian is located outside
>the UA group, the current classification, where it is in should
>be regarded as valid.

Of course.

>Simply stating someone doesn't like it without telling why, is
>not really a great argument, is it ?!

Well, they have their arguments.


                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7E3lv4C0a0jUw5YEQL+CgCcCxsUmiae4MS80VLwEvEoyopwg9MAoIqG
96tznTZzU7ACX7sOMViRCp55
=ujDr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991422030001@ppp040-max03.twics.com>
> Also, I've never read good arguments for Japanese or Basque being
> related to any other language.

In the case of Basque, this is because a) there is not many basque
linguists and research is limited compared to other languages, and b) due
to political circumstances it is somewhat of a taboo item.

With regards to Japanese, may I suggest the language may not be the focus
of discussion in western circles (other than the perception that it is
difficult to learn). When I studied Japanese it was always mentioned that
it was a member of the Uralo-Altaic group and research on ancient Japanese
supports this.


> >Remind you, that the suggested Hungarian Sumerian connection is based
> >on excavations of objects in Transylvania of magyar origin with
> >cuneiform writing on it.
> 
> Do you have an URL for this? (Not questioning you, just curious about
> it.)

I will try to dig it out. I believe one of the famous objects is called
tatarlaki medallion, which is estimated (C14) to be even 1000 years older
than the oldest known Sumerian tablets found in Uruk. You may find
something by yourself, but be aware, that discussions are heavily
politicised, as many Hungarian scholars seem to sub-ordinate anything to a
historical proof that Transylvania is inherently Hungarian and does not
belong into the hands of Bucharest. "Unimportant items" like the origin of
languages comes second.

The most unbiased scholars seem to be exiled/expat Hungarians ;-)

you may also find this article about Hungarian by Fred Hamori interesting

   http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/language.htm

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7672lfjj9.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:22:03 +0900, 
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> writes:

> In the case of Basque, this is because a) there is not many basque
> linguists and research is limited compared to other languages, and b) due
> to political circumstances it is somewhat of a taboo item.

Quite a while ago (and I can't give an references or URL), I read the
suggestion that Basque (perhaps like Pictish) may have been a proto-European
(or whatever you call it) language that was displaced by the advent of the
Indo-Europeans a few thousand years ago. Some researcher had found
similarities between Basque and Bantu languages. No idea if this theory was
substantiated in any way. 

                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37bcc6e4.279791208@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12 Aug 1999 10:14:02 +0100, Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Some researcher had found similarities between Basque and
>Bantu languages. No idea if this theory was substantiated
>in any way. 

Every now and then you hear that Basque has similarities with an
African language, or Maya, or whatever fancies the researcher. But
I've never seen any decent defense of these theories, nor they seem to
have been taken seriously by linguists, so I suspect they're a bit
like the "global language" fad (Nostratic, etc.) nowadays: perhaps it
is true, but there is no way to prove it.

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7K5hP4C0a0jUw5YEQIOGgCdF7lh8jVXBkwu/94JTlFbwOT12+MAoKri
QSZuD05AeBX6NE/v5et/98z0
=A12y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b49117.266018844@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:22:03 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>In the case of Basque, this is because a) there is not many basque
>linguists and research is limited compared to other languages,

I don't think that's entirely true. AFAIK there are lots of basque (in
both meanings of the word) linguists and research is done in the
linguistic departments of the universities of Euzkadi.

>and b) due to political circumstances it is somewhat of a taboo item.

As I said in an earlier message, politics do interfere with science,
but doesn't silence it. If a linguist were to discover any plausible
connection between Basque and any other language I bet it'd be subject
of TV news here in Spain. I'm serious.

>When I studied Japanese it was always mentioned that it was a
>member of the Uralo-Altaic group and research on ancient Japanese
>supports this.

I don't know Japanese, but I've talked with several linguists
specialized in Japanese and they've never mentioned this fact, quite
the contrary. And, interestling enough, the Ethnologue
(www.sil.org/ethnologue) lists Japanese in its own family, and adds:
"Possibly related to Korean."

>I believe one of the famous objects is called tatarlaki medallion,

Thanks, I'll look into it.

>but be aware, that discussions are heavily politicised,

Yes, I'm pretty sure of that :)


                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7KFr/4C0a0jUw5YEQJkYACggYhnNUGRgq0rnZt8nx/KcBs44NcAn3DR
gmo/+8ooqjlV10Dyj1Mf3cai
=LuqW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408991518530001@ppp042-max03.twics.com>
> >and b) due to political circumstances it is somewhat of a taboo item.
> 
> As I said in an earlier message, politics do interfere with science,
> but doesn't silence it. If a linguist were to discover any plausible
> connection between Basque and any other language I bet it'd be subject
> of TV news here in Spain. I'm serious.

Oh, sure. And it is quite possible that this may happen eventually. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone will show a relationship of Basque with
Hungarian or maybe even Etrusc. Nevertheless, politics in science often
have the effect to slow things down.


> I don't know Japanese, but I've talked with several linguists
> specialized in Japanese and they've never mentioned this fact, quite
> the contrary. And, interestling enough, the Ethnologue
> (www.sil.org/ethnologue) lists Japanese in its own family,

The Japanese had a long period of isolation (almost 400 years) until 1868,
when the so called Meiji Restauration period began and they tried to make
up for the "lost" four centuries within a few decades. By 1905 they were
the first "third world" country that defeated an industrial world power
(Russia) at war. This tremendous development mixed with Japanese
mythology, by which the language was given to their ancestors by a devine
entity from heaven, had the effect that the Japanese thought of themselves
as something special. As a result they could not accept the findings of
linguists who suggested that ancient Japanese was part of the UA group of
languages. Nowadays the Japanese have accepted that they have brothers and
sisters and cousins, but the notion is a bit like "If you meet Germans,
don't mention the war".

I think it is proper to say, that today the attribution of Japanese as an
Altaic language is widely accepted and can be regarded as quietly
undisputed.

> and adds: "Possibly related to Korean."

I know Japanese linguists who support that quietly. However, the
relationship between Korea and Japan is very delicate. Neither Korean nor
Japanese linguists would want to stick their heads out of the window and
funding any research in this direction should be difficult.

I know you don't like me mentioning this, but this is another politically
motivated slow-down situation. To give you an example how bad things are:

Young Koreans studying in Japan have to hide this fact as if this is found
out in Korea, they will not find a spouse, also they risk being expelled
from their clan. In Japan, too, if someone finds out their spouse is of
Korean origin and has not told them before the wedding, this qualifies to
file for divorce.

Sentiments are even directed towards foreigners living in Japan or Korea.
I remember a very rude display of disrespect by Koreans in a coffee shop
in London, when I got a short phone call from a Japanese friend which
revealed to the Koreans that I was a Japanese speaker. Many of my gaijin
friends can tell similar stories. And I have seen good friendships between
Westerners breaking up when one of them went to Korea while the other went
to Japan. When they met again they had nothing in common anymore and the
disarray of their host countries had carried over into their beliefs.


Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37bc1f81.5519065@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:18:53 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>I wouldn't be surprised if someone will show a relationship of
>Basque with Hungarian or maybe even Etrusc.

Oh, I'm not implying that's not possible (I think no language is an
island); only that my understanding is that it's not been demonstrated
yet.

>I think it is proper to say, that today the attribution of Japanese
>as an Altaic language is widely accepted and can be regarded as
>quietly undisputed.

I didn't know that. Do you have any URL that I can dig into?

>I know you don't like me mentioning this, but this is another
>politically motivated slow-down situation.

Don't get me wrong. I live in Spain. We have at least four widely
recognized languages (Castilian, Catalonian, Basque and Galician) and
at least two more than are currently fighting a mostly-political
battle to be considered as "languages" and not "dialects" (Bable and
Valencian). Moreover, some linguists do consider Andalusian to be a
different language from Castilian Spanish. Also, there are
"galician-phile" linguists who consider Galician as wholly different
from Portuguese, and "luso-phile" linguists who consider it as just
another dialect of Portuguese. So, I'd say I'm pretty aware of the
influence of politics in linguistic studies :)

>To give you an example how bad things are:

That's pretty interesting, although I confess I'm somewhat puzzled. I
know several very prominent Go players are from Chinese and Korean
origin and they're well considered. Same thing happens, I believe, for
sumo wrestlers. Maybe that's like Canadian tennis player Mary Pierce,
to whom the French consider a compatriot when she wins and a Quebecois
when she loses :)

                                                           Juanma

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7kW2v4C0a0jUw5YEQKsywCgkkchS3ZAaziYccG8oOD4eUSF810An0i9
4j8T65aJPRWKC1DYIhWIcEyT
=NlKi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1908991300180001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
> >I think it is proper to say, that today the attribution of Japanese
> >as an Altaic language is widely accepted and can be regarded as
> >quietly undisputed.
> 
> I didn't know that. Do you have any URL that I can dig into?

Well I had already posted some URL's earlier, where not only Hungarian but
also Japanese was covered. However, you may as well find other URL's that
list Japanese as isolated. Fact is, that if you are to study Japanese
today, whether in a private institution or at university, the likelihood
that you are being told that it belongs to the Uralo-Altaic group is very
much higher than that anyone tells you it is isolated. And if they are
cautious, they will not name the group, but will say Japanese is related
to Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish...

If you really want to dig deeper, you could create an index with a web
robot visiting web sites of universities' linguistics departments and
count how many take what viewpoint. I would be very surprised to not see
the "isolationists" to be a minority.


> Don't get me wrong. I live in Spain. We have at least four widely
> recognized languages (Castilian, Catalonian, Basque and Galician) and
> at least two more than are currently fighting a mostly-political
> battle to be considered as "languages" and not "dialects"

...and claims from the Baleares that Mallorquin is a different language
all together :-) Well, it has quite some similarities to French, but
anyway...


> That's pretty interesting, although I confess I'm somewhat puzzled. I
> know several very prominent Go players are from Chinese and Korean
> origin and they're well considered.

The Chinese have a credibility as contributors of culture (at least in the
past). With the Koreans it is different. The Japanese may admire a Korean
Go player, but they would never allow the guy to marry any of their
daughters.

> Same thing happens, I believe, for sumo wrestlers.

I don't know of any Korean sumo wrestlers in Japan. There is lots of
Hawaians who are quite successful (ie. Akebono) and who have public
support.

> Maybe that's like Canadian tennis player Mary Pierce,
> to whom the French consider a compatriot when she wins and a Quebecois
> when she loses :)

:-) Well, French is a matter of beliefs and lifestyle, not of blood, isn't it ?!
Unless someone is of Arabic descent, in which case the matter gets a bit
more "difficile"...

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <37bcbbb8.82683772@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:00:18 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>I would be very surprised to not see the "isolationists" to be a
>minority.

OK, I'll search the URLs you gave in previous messages. Thanks for the
clarifications.

>...and claims from the Baleares that Mallorquin is a different
>language all together :-)

Well, I didn't mention it because most inhabitants of the Islas
Baleares seem to think of their native tongue as "catal�" and not a
different language, but yes, there's a (politically-minded) minority
that claims it's not Catalonian, too. Go figure.

>Well, it has quite some similarities to French, but anyway...

It's funny you say that. Mallorqu� has influence from English (because
Menorca was occupied by Englishmen for a long time). The French
influence is a generalized phenomenon in Catalonian, not just
Mallorqu�.

>I don't know of any Korean sumo wrestlers in Japan.

My mistake, then.

>:-) Well, French is a matter of beliefs and lifestyle, not of blood,
>isn't it ?!

Hear, hear! :)

>Unless someone is of Arabic descent, in which case the matter gets a
>bit more "difficile"...

Yes. Racism is raising its ugly head everywhere in Europa. Spaniards
considered themselves not to be racists (and were very proud of
that)... till the Magreb immigrants started to come to Spain in great
quantities. Now there are racist incidents every few months. :(

                                                           Juanma

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7uwAf4C0a0jUw5YEQIGHwCaApbEc+bZMQm6t93uecyVZOaat0oAn3v4
xH439kwJrUdnRSJ50Jz+PicL
=tM/h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: anguages
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130300b3d79f5f3a0f@195.138.129.95>
(comp.lang.lisp.offtopic)

Hartmann Schaffer wrote:                [1999-08-11 18:18 +0000]

  [...]
  > This evidence can't be very strong:  As far as I know, the Hungarians
  > settled in Hungary about AD 300 or 400 (aren't they descendents of the
  > Huns?), coming almost straight out of Central Asia.
  [...]

Not that it matters much with regard to any Sumerian connection I
suppose, but the Magyars (Hungarians) came to Europe in the 10th century.
From Asia, but I am not sure it was Central Asia.


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990225320001@ppp009-max03.twics.com>
> > While this doesn't prove anything, it is plausible. 
> 
> For certain (rather implausible) values of 'plausible', yes ;-)


How plausible then do you find the rather irrational interpretation of the
bible as upheld by the christian faith (and related faiths) ?

While I admit that Daniken and Sitchin are rather controversial figures, I
see a lot more rationality in many of their views than what is the
official version taught by christian education.

Besides, christians have their own flesh and blood gods: Christ, the
Virgin Mother, the Pope ...

Virgin Mother ? Oh yes, that is one of these very plausible things, isn't it ?

If there is anything that needs a critical reassessment due to an
unsurpassed track record of misinterpretation and forgery, the christian
faith's official version of history is high up there on the list.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7pv0vhq0b.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:25:32 +0900, 
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> writes:

>> > While this doesn't prove anything, it is plausible. 
>> 
>> For certain (rather implausible) values of 'plausible', yes ;-)


> How plausible then do you find the rather irrational interpretation of the
> bible as upheld by the christian faith (and related faiths) ?

certainly far less plausible than cosmonaut gods, to be sure!  I am totally
with you on this; interpreting the bible this literally is, in my humble
opinion, a travesty of reason.  (But of course, there's no refuting the
argument that God could just as easily have created all the geological and
paleontological evidence for the age of the earth and the process of
Darwinian evolution ;-) 

> While I admit that Daniken and Sitchin are rather controversial figures, I
> see a lot more rationality in many of their views than what is the
> official version taught by christian education.

yes, I agree. 

> Besides, christians have their own flesh and blood gods: Christ, the
> Virgin Mother, the Pope ...

> Virgin Mother ? Oh yes, that is one of these very plausible things, isn't it ?

Look, I'm not a Christian or anything; many parts of the Bible are exceedingly
implausible to me, and have to be 'interpreted' with a suitable grain of
salt.

> If there is anything that needs a critical reassessment due to an
> unsurpassed track record of misinterpretation and forgery, the christian
> faith's official version of history is high up there on the list.

yes, absolutely. I was just cautioning against your flight of fancy. Sorry if
I sounded a bit categoric. 

I will not responding much further, this thing (while very interesting) has
been going on a wee bit too long. And let's hope we will not be spammed about
this by religious fundamentalists ...



Cheers,

                                                                      Philip

-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130301b3d5cec0e2a3@195.138.129.87>
  > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:25:32 +0900, 
  > Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> writes:
  [...]
  > > Besides, christians have their own flesh and blood gods: Christ, the
  > > Virgin Mother, the Pope ...

For the sake of correctness, Christians have just one God; the Virgin
Mother is a _saint_ (the most important of all saints), and the Pope
is one of the leaders of Christians, otherwise a mere mortal (_some_
popes have been proclaimed saints (some time) after they died).

  [...]

(As to the subject of interpreting the Bible, I have neither the competence
nor the time to go into that, but it's not that I don't find it important.
In any case one should not freely mix what the Bible says with what the
Christian Churches say and do.)


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Bj�rn Remseth
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <aj1zd86doe.fsf@tyrfing.ifi.uio.no>
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:

> For the sake of correctness, Christians have just one God; 

.. but he (or whatever) is also a triple (son, father, holy spirit),
which means that the Christians wants us to believe that 3 = 1, which
of course one needs a strong faith to accept, but this is not
considered a problem in religious circles :)


(btw: I think this thread could turn out to be _really_ cool, with 
      a little luck we may   actually  have a _real_ holy war in 
      the  here in c.l.l.  }:-)

-- 
                                                    (Rmz)

Bj\o rn Remseth   !Institutt for Informatikk    !Net:  ···@ifi.uio.no
Phone:+47 91341332!Universitetet i Oslo, Norway !ICBM: N595625E104337
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <u73dxom3bd.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
Bj�rn> this is not considered a problem in religious circles :)

which, incidentally, have a circumference of 3 :-)
                                                                      Philip


-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991441420001@ppp040-max03.twics.com>
> For the sake of correctness, Christians have just one God [...]

So they keep telling us ...

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130302b3d90f1bdb0b@195.138.129.100>
Bj¯rn Remseth wrote:                [1999-08-12 20:45 +0200]

  > Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:
  > 
  > > For the sake of correctness, Christians have just one God; 
  > 
  > .. but he (or whatever) is also a triple (son, father, holy spirit),

He.  (Do you have a special reason to use `triple' instead of `trinity'?)

  > which means that the Christians wants us to believe that 3 = 1, which
  > of course one needs a strong faith to accept, but this is not
  > considered a problem in religious circles :)
  [...]

(I do see the smiley here but nevertheless.)

It is well known that this issue has been the subject of huge theological
debates, and I can't even think of repeating or emulating them here, but
I'll quote one argument (from the 9th century): the Sun is a single entity
but on the other hand it is: round (1 of 3), gives light (2 of 3), gives
heat (3 of 3).


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Ian Wild
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B3C7A1.90B60457@cfmu.eurocontrol.be>
Vassil Nikolov wrote:
> 
> I'll quote one argument (from the 9th century): the Sun is a single entity
> but on the other hand it is: round (1 of 3), gives light (2 of 3), gives
> heat (3 of 3).

..has mass (4 of 3)...
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <9fMr3.37233$5r2.72439@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>
In article <··············@ebi.ac.uk>,
	Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>> Even more interesting is what linguists have come up with. Sumerian is
>> quite well understood and it is quite close to modern Hungarian, as much
>> as many words can still be recognised in Hungarian.
> 
> this surprises me greatly: I thought Hungarian belonged to the indo-european
> group, Sumerian to the Semitic group. 

Hungarian is one of the few nonindoeuropean languages of Europe,
together with Finnishm Estonianm abd Samish (Laplandish) (I think its
distantly related to those and Turkish)m and Basque.  As far as I know
there is no known language group Sumerian can be related to.

> ...
-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130300b3d476955a1d@195.138.129.79>
Philip Lijnzaad wrote:                [1999-08-09 12:58 +0100]

  > > Even more interesting is what linguists have come up with. Sumerian is
  > > quite well understood and it is quite close to modern Hungarian, as much
  > > as many words can still be recognised in Hungarian.
  > 
  > this surprises me greatly: I thought Hungarian belonged to the indo-european
  > group, Sumerian to the Semitic group. 

Hungarian is not Indo-European.  It belongs to the Ural family of languages
which also includes Finnish and Estonian among others.

But I have no idea if Hungarian is related to Sumerian.

  [...]



Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130302b3d4833651a0@195.138.129.96>
Philip Lijnzaad wrote:                [1999-08-09 12:58 +0100]

  [...]
  > Geological evidence is mounting that around 5,600 BC, the Black Sea stopped
  > being an inland sea, being flooded by the higher-lying Mediterranean Sea
  > breaking through a natural dam at the Bosporus.
  [...]

This is very interesting (and new) to me.  I'll be grateful if you could
provide more details about that geological evidence.

(If you post it, please cc to my e-mail address.)

(As far as I know, there were overall fluctuations in the level of
the World Ocean (generally a rise) in the 4th millennium BC, but
they are rather difficult to date more precisely than within a
few centuries.)


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Bernhard Pfahringer
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <7omqds$4mua$1@www.univie.ac.at>
In article <·····················@195.138.129.96>,
Vassil Nikolov  <········@poboxes.com> wrote:
>Philip Lijnzaad wrote:                [1999-08-09 12:58 +0100]
>
>  [...]
>  > Geological evidence is mounting that around 5,600 BC, the Black Sea stopped
>  > being an inland sea, being flooded by the higher-lying Mediterranean Sea
>  > breaking through a natural dam at the Bosporus.
>  [...]
>
>This is very interesting (and new) to me.  I'll be grateful if you could
>provide more details about that geological evidence.
>
>(If you post it, please cc to my e-mail address.)
>
>(As far as I know, there were overall fluctuations in the level of
>the World Ocean (generally a rise) in the 4th millennium BC, but
>they are rather difficult to date more precisely than within a
>few centuries.)
>
>

Another hypothesis is that the blow-up of the volcanic Greek island Santorin
caused a significant tsunami (about 2000 BC if I remember correctly) which
lead to similar flood stories in the affected regions.
I remember reading about the Black Sea hypothesis as well, but unfortunately
don't have URLs for either.

cheers and sorry for the totally offtopic content

Bernhard
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernhard Pfahringer
Austrian Research Institute for  http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/~bernhard/
Artificial Intelligence          ········@ai.univie.ac.at 
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: Volcanos
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b5f709.29992176@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9 Aug 1999 15:00:12 GMT, ········@hummel.ai.univie.ac.at (Bernhard
Pfahringer) wrote:

>Another hypothesis is that the blow-up of the volcanic Greek island
>Santorin caused a significant tsunami (about 2000 BC if I remember
>correctly) which lead to similar flood stories in the affected regions.

According to Volcano World (http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/), the Thera
(or Santorini) eruption happened around 1650 BC, and is estimated to
have been a VEI* 6 and to have produced a tsunami of up to 300 feet
(100 m.) high.

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u


*Voclcanic Explosivity Index. 6 is a "colossal" explosion, similar to
the one in Krakatau in 1883, or 10 times stronger than the
"paroxysmal" one of Mount St. Helens in 1980.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN67qgv4C0a0jUw5YEQKm0wCeK0M3vM72+7TaP2CphmnX66aZIRcAn0pY
vi9aBEKJESsKxZZa8A50My4a
=/MX6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7pv0wrhqb.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
[ desperately thinking of a way to add some lisp content ... ]

On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:43:42 +0300, 
"Vassil" == Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:

Vassil> Philip Lijnzaad wrote:                [1999-08-09 12:58 +0100]
Vassil> [...]
>> Geological evidence is mounting that around 5,600 BC, the Black Sea stopped
>> being an inland sea, being flooded by the higher-lying Mediterranean Sea
>> breaking through a natural dam at the Bosporus.
Vassil> [...]

Vassil> This is very interesting (and new) to me.  I'll be grateful if you could
Vassil> provide more details about that geological evidence.

The media have sort of jumped on this; a quick search on the inimitable
Google search engine (who needs bookmarks if you have http://www.google.com B-)
with the terms "black sea bible geology flood" yielded, amongst others,

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9743.htm
http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/Blacksea/
http://www.aapg.org/apr99expl/greatflood.html
http://www.detnews.com/1999/religion/9901/26/01200293.htm
http://www.newpower.org/xnews/oldmsg/179.shtml

One source pointed out that it isn't compatible with the Genesis story, as
there rain caused the flooding, and the flooding stopped after 40 days. 

Cheers,

                                                                      Philip

-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: Bible
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130301b3d4c41e4dc6@195.138.129.104>
Bernhard Pfahringer wrote:                [1999-08-09 15:00 +0000]

  [...]
  > Another hypothesis is that the blow-up of the volcanic Greek island Santorin
  > caused a significant tsunami (about 2000 BC if I remember correctly) which
  > lead to similar flood stories in the affected regions.
  > I remember reading about the Black Sea hypothesis as well, but unfortunately
  > don't have URLs for either.

In any way, the 4th millennium BC phenomenon I know (a little) about
is related to a *slow* rise of the water level (e.g. a few metres in
the course of a century or two).

comp.lang.lisp.prehistory...

(It is off-Lisp but in a sense not completely off-topic if it is of
interest to people who are interested in Lisp.)


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86aes7m6pe.fsf@g.local>
Lieven Marchand wrote:

> Most of the New Testament is written in Aramese IIRC.

You mean Aramaic. But all of the New Testament is written in
Greek. There are some bits of Aramaic in the *Old* Testament
(in the book of Daniel), and probably Aramaic was Jesus's
first (or only?) language: but the NT is all in Greek. I'm
told that some of it is in pretty bad Greek, too. :-)

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87pv12t35e.fsf@2xtreme.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Lieven Marchand wrote:
> 
> > Most of the New Testament is written in Aramese IIRC.
> 
> You mean Aramaic. But all of the New Testament is written in
> Greek. There are some bits of Aramaic in the *Old* Testament
> (in the book of Daniel), and probably Aramaic was Jesus's
> first (or only?) language: but the NT is all in Greek. I'm
> told that some of it is in pretty bad Greek, too. :-)

Paul wrote most of the New Testament and he reputably spoke "street
Greek." Paul was also an accomplished medical doctor and a lot of
doctor terminology and analogies are used in the narrative of the New
Testament. Many scholars say that Paul's mark is all over the New
Testament and that this is how it is known that he wrote most of it.

Christopher
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qjtlc.6b0.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:40:08 GMT, Christopher R. Barry wrote:
>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

>> first (or only?) language: but the NT is all in Greek. I'm
>> told that some of it is in pretty bad Greek, too. :-)

>Paul wrote most of the New Testament and he reputably spoke "street
>Greek." Paul was also an accomplished medical doctor and a lot of
>doctor terminology and analogies are used in the narrative of the New
>Testament. Many scholars say that Paul's mark is all over the New
>Testament and that this is how it is known that he wrote most of it.

Luke, not Paul, wrote most of the NT and was a doctor.  And yes, his
writing shows it -- huge words and sophisticated grammar.

Paul wrote most of the books and was an -- um -- philosopher, tentmaker,
speaker and traveller; perhaps the equivalent of a lawyer.  He was
well-educated, and his prose has good style while being more approachable
than Luke's.

Peter was an uneducated fisherman, and his style certainly shows it.  I
don't read Greek well enough to be certain it's bad Greek, but it
certainly looks that way to me.

>Christopher

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86emhhg6vq.fsf@g.local>
William Tanksley wrote:

[Christopher Barry:]
>> Paul wrote most of the New Testament and he reputably spoke "street
>> Greek." Paul was also an accomplished medical doctor and a lot of
>> doctor terminology and analogies are used in the narrative of the New
>> Testament. Many scholars say that Paul's mark is all over the New
>> Testament and that this is how it is known that he wrote most of it.
> 
> Luke, not Paul, wrote most of the NT and was a doctor.  And yes, his
> writing shows it -- huge words and sophisticated grammar.

No. Luke was a doctor and Paul wrote most of the NT. No one was
both, so far as I know. :-)

(Actually, the count of allegedly Pauline books no longer believed
by most scholars to have been written by Paul is going up and up;
I am not very convinced by what little I know of the arguments for
some of these.)

> Paul wrote most of the books and was an -- um -- philosopher, tentmaker,
> speaker and traveller; perhaps the equivalent of a lawyer.  He was
> well-educated, and his prose has good style while being more approachable
> than Luke's.

Er? I don't think most people would call Paul's Greek "approachable".
(I'm no expert on Greek myself; I'm just repeating what I've heard
from people who are.) It's doubtless more approachable than the Greek
of 1 Peter -- *how* long is that first sentence? -- but that's not
saying much.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87iu6tu1zz.fsf@2xtreme.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> No. Luke was a doctor and Paul wrote most of the NT. No one was
> both, so far as I know. :-)

Luke and Paul were both doctors. (Luke is much more famous as a
doctor.)

> (Actually, the count of allegedly Pauline books no longer believed
> by most scholars to have been written by Paul is going up and up;
> I am not very convinced by what little I know of the arguments for
> some of these.)

I haven't heard anything about this, but it is certainly possible.

Christopher
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qkhga.825.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 01:19:35 GMT, Christopher R. Barry wrote:
>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

>> No. Luke was a doctor and Paul wrote most of the NT. No one was
>> both, so far as I know. :-)

>Luke and Paul were both doctors. (Luke is much more famous as a
>doctor.)

Eh?  Really?  I thought Paul was a tentmaker.  At any rate, Luke did write
most of the NT -- take a look at the page counts in Luke and Acts.  Paul's
eppistles don't even come close in size.

>> (Actually, the count of allegedly Pauline books no longer believed
>> by most scholars to have been written by Paul is going up and up;
>> I am not very convinced by what little I know of the arguments for
>> some of these.)

>I haven't heard anything about this, but it is certainly possible.

Agreed.

Of course, I've also heard that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but
another Greek of the same name.  Which brings us the the question of
namespaces, and thus back on-topic :).

>Christopher

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Christopher B. Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qkmb0.auc.cbbrowne@knuth.brownes.org>
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 02:18:51 GMT, William Tanksley
<········@dolphin.openprojects.net> posted:  
>On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 01:19:35 GMT, Christopher R. Barry wrote:
>>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> No. Luke was a doctor and Paul wrote most of the NT. No one was
>>> both, so far as I know. :-)
>
>>Luke and Paul were both doctors. (Luke is much more famous as a
>>doctor.)
>
>Eh?  Really?  I thought Paul was a tentmaker.  At any rate, Luke did write
>most of the NT -- take a look at the page counts in Luke and Acts.  Paul's
>epistles don't even come close in size.

Remember that "doctor" has two meanings in English:

(let
    ((doctor 'physician))
  (treat-malady doctor 'Typhoid))

and

(let 
    ((doctor 'One-who-Piles-Higher-and-Deeper))
  (if
      (equalp (education-level applicant) doctor)
      (give-tenure applicant)
    (reject applicant)))

Luke was a doctor of the "physician" persuasion, whilst Paul was
rather more like a "doctor of the law," who also had training in the
trade of making tents.

This is actually pretty appropriate to an issue of namespaces...

>>> (actually, the count of allegedly Pauline books no longer believed
>>> by most scholars to have been written by Paul is going up and up;
>>> I am not very convinced by what little I know of the arguments for
>>> some of these.)
>
>>I haven't heard anything about this, but it is certainly possible.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Of course, I've also heard that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but
>another Greek of the same name.  Which brings us the the question of
>namespaces, and thus back on-topic :).

Ah.  Namespaces.

(write-book Paul 'Romans)
(write-book Paul 'Corinthians 1)
(write-book Paul 'Corinthians 2)
(let
      ((Paul Luke))   ;;; For "Theophilisian values of Paul"
  (write-book Paul 'Galatians)
  (write-book Paul 'Ephesians)
  (write-book Paul 'Phillipians))
(write-book Paul 'Colossians)

-- 
"A statement is either correct or incorrect.  To be *very* incorrect is
 like being *very* dead ... "
-- Herbert F. Spirer
                   Professor of Information Management
                   University of Conn.
                   (DATAMATION Letters, Sept. 1, 1984)
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37AAA179.7824A156@pindar.com>
"Christopher B. Browne" wrote:

> Remember that "doctor" has two meanings in English:
>
> (let
>     ((doctor 'physician))
>   (treat-malady doctor 'Typhoid))
>
> and
>
> (let
>     ((doctor 'One-who-Piles-Higher-and-Deeper))
>   (if
>       (equalp (education-level applicant) doctor)
>       (give-tenure applicant)
>     (reject applicant)))

surely you mean

(let
    ((doctor 'One-with-Piles-Higher-and-Deeper))

:-) will
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130301b3ce5187136b@195.138.129.109>
Lieven Marchand wrote:                [1999-08-04 18:43 +0200]

  > Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:
  > 
  > > One perhaps lesser known piece of this debate occurred in the 9th
  > > century when St. Cyril and St. Methodius translated the Bible into
  > > Old Bulgarian (a.k.a. Slavic-Bulgarian), as part of a missionary
  > 
  > Is this language also called Old Church Slavonic?

I have never heard `_Old_ Church Slavonic' used.  On the other hand,
there _is_ `Church Slavonic' which has, so to say, the `look and feel'
of Old Bulgarian and is its descendant under Russian influence.
(Since for several centuries, due to the Turkish conquest of the
Balkans, Russia was the mainstay of `Cyrillic-Slavonic' Christianity.)


  [...]
  > Most of the New Testament is written in Aramese IIRC.

I can't comment on that right now but I'll try to consult people.


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ae1e23.1844085@news.mclink.it>
On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:30:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:

> fun. From this anecdotal evidence, I would say that COBOL is more alive
> than Latin.

Latin, by the way, is still in use. If I'm not wrong, it's the language for
official Vatican documents. Of course it has been updated with modern terms
such as those related to technology (e.g. television, computer, telephone,
airplane, rocket, etc.; such fun :)


Paolo
-- 
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A800A6.CF5E65C9@pindar.com>
Paolo Amoroso wrote:

> Of course it has been updated with modern terms such as those related to
> technology (e.g. television, computer, telephone, airplane, rocket, etc.;
> such fun :)

How has this been done? By stealing words from a.n.other language or by
describing these items using words elements already in existance in the
language.

As an aside: I believe there to be a department at the University College of
Wales, Aberstwydd to keep Cymraeg alive and tasked with stopping the spread of
Wenglish.

Cheers,

:-) will

'Why put off until tomorrow, something you can leave until the day after' --
Garrison Keillor
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ab67dd.1038103@news.mclink.it>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:58:14 +0100, William Deakin <·····@pindar.com>
wrote:

> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> 
> > Of course it has been updated with modern terms such as those related to
> > technology (e.g. television, computer, telephone, airplane, rocket, etc.;
> > such fun :)
> 
> How has this been done? By stealing words from a.n.other language or by
> describing these items using words elements already in existance in the
> language.

I read that words a while back, and the only thing I still remember is the
fun :-(


Paolo
-- 
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A83C0F.58AC9C45@fisec.com>
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:30:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> > fun. From this anecdotal evidence, I would say that COBOL is more alive
> > than Latin.
> 
> Latin, by the way, is still in use. If I'm not wrong, it's the language for
> official Vatican documents. Of course it has been updated with modern terms
> such as those related to technology (e.g. television, computer, telephone,
> airplane, rocket, etc.; such fun :)

Not all of us got the hidden joke, that is, almost all of these words
come from either Latin or Greek. It's more accurate to say that
languages turned to Latin and Greek to describe things of modern life. 
The funniest are those composite words which are half Latin, half Greek
plus some "native" conjugation (oops). 
If the only language on the Earth was English, we could still say Latin
is 60% alive...

Robert
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408992302010001@ppp030-max03.twics.com>
> languages turned to Latin and Greek to describe things of modern life. 
> The funniest are those composite words which are half Latin, half Greek

like hexa-decimal, which should be se-decimal ;-)

Also auto-mobile which, by the way has served the Chinese (JE-DONG-SHA)
and the Japanese (JI-DOH-SHA), literally "Self-movement-vehicle" to derive
their words.

> If the only language on the Earth was English, we could still say Latin
> is 60% alive...

But then again, there is 1.2 billion people sharing the Chinese family of
languages, or at least the written representation, which doesn't quite
have any major influences from Latin.

Chinese by the way, doesn't have a grammar in the sense Latin has. There
is not much of a structure, more a list of symbols (but no parentheses).
;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7emhjr5m9.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:11:43 -0400, 
"Robert" == Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:

Robert> The funniest are those composite words which are half Latin, half Greek
Robert> plus some "native" conjugation (oops). 

yes, one instance is automobile: I've seen argued that this should be either
ipsemobile or autokinematon (if I remember correctly) 
                                                                      Philip


-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a899fc.7251076@judy.x-ray.local>
Paolo Amoroso from Italy wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:30:05 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> fun. From this anecdotal evidence, I would say that COBOL is more alive
>> than Latin.
>
>Latin, by the way, is still in use. If I'm not wrong, it's the language for
>official Vatican documents. Of course it has been updated with modern terms
>such as those related to technology (e.g. television, computer, telephone,
>airplane, rocket, etc.; such fun :)

In my school it was "Pflicht", that says we had to learn it and it was
even "ein Pflichtfach zur Matura", we had to take latin in the written
final exam. (I had to do it oral as well because I failed. This was
really hard.) But this way I got used to spanish, italian, french and
romanian.

Most of the high schools ("realistische und naturwissenschaftliche
gymnasien", in short AHS, which 80% attend) here in austria still teach
latin, but rumors are going to abandon it in the nearer future, because
people call it a "Dead Language". hmm. 
if you study medicine or law you have to learn too, but not ancient
greek anymore which was required for most humanistic subjects before.

So I would say that Latin is more alive than Cobol. How got Cobol taught
at school nowadays?
But Latin is certainly dying.

Vassil from Bulgaria wrote:
> You'd be surprised how alive Latin is. I remember math classes at
> university, especially analytical geometry where our professors
> recommended tons of books for us to read and the only one that was neither
> in Ancient Greek nor in Latin would have been someting in French by Blaise
> Pascal. Not a single recommendation for a book in English and many of
> those books didn't have a publicly accessible translation at all. The
> Greek ones all had translations into Latin, though. ;-)

Here too. The argument here goes like this:
Most translations are crap (I have to admit, they are really a crap!)
and you really have to be able to read the original Euler, Euclid
(impossible to find), Gauss, Leibniz, Plato, Newton or any other. For
most of the interesting and former standard books I couldn't find any
decent german translation but the latin or greek original version were
available. thanksfully I know some latin and greek.
But in the states (UC Berkeley) I found much better translations for
some of those classics though.

thanksfully computing is different. 
and modern physics :) this is luckily mostly german, thanks to
"heisenbug" and friends.

but who will understand our lisp code in the next centuries? 
all this work will be totally useless then.

--                                         
Reini
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408990734220001@ppp013-max03.twics.com>
> Latin, by the way, is still in use. If I'm not wrong, it's the language for
> official Vatican documents. Of course it has been updated with modern terms
> such as those related to technology (e.g. television, computer, telephone,
> airplane, rocket, etc.; such fun :)

In Raetia, a canton of Switzerland (between the German and the Italian
speaking part) the native language is raeto-romanic, which is in fact
Latin.

I remember on a holiday to Switzerland seeing the terms you describe, like
the Swiss Federal Railways, were "The carriages of the iron way of the
Helvetic Confederation". Really cute ;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <moQp3.24739$5r2.53475@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>
In article <································@ppp013-max03.twics.com>,
	···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
> ...
> In Raetia, a canton of Switzerland (between the German and the Italian
> speaking part) the native language is raeto-romanic, which is in fact
> Latin.

Are you sure?  When I was there it didn't look any closer to Latin than
e.g. Spanish, Italian, or Sardian(?).

-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b0982e.5711793@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 05:41:38 GMT, ··@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann
Schaffer) wrote:

>Are you sure?  When I was there it didn't look any closer to Latin
>than e.g. Spanish, Italian, or Sardian(?).

In fact, according to the Ethnologue "Languages of the World" list, it
has "78% lexical similarity with Italian and French, 76% with Catalan,
74% with Spanish, Sardinian, and Portuguese, 72% with Rumanian."

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN66Kg/4C0a0jUw5YEQLwsQCfRe2Js0Xs+yKR/ZN106ltyFfhZVoAoMW/
duS48RQ/mQRZm7pFA3Ju8KrI
=rJeL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130302b3ce535f825c@195.138.129.109>
Reini Urban wrote:                [1999-08-04 20:15 +0000]

  [...]
  > Vassil from Bulgaria wrote:
  > > You'd be surprised how alive Latin is. I remember math classes at
  > > university, especially analytical geometry where our professors
  > > recommended tons of books for us to read and the only one that was neither
  > > in Ancient Greek nor in Latin would have been someting in French by Blaise
  > > Pascal. Not a single recommendation for a book in English and many of
  > > those books didn't have a publicly accessible translation at all. The
  > > Greek ones all had translations into Latin, though. ;-)

No, it was actually someone else (I think someone from the UK?) who
wrote that particular piece in this thread, not me.

Unfortunately both Latin and Greek have been expunged from the Bulgarian
educational system for the last 50 years (with the small exceptions of
medicine and to some extent law).  But people who went to school in
the 1920s and 1930s did study Latin and Greek.  As one of those people
once said in a private conversation with me, those languages are dead
only to people with dead minds.

  > the original Euler, Euclid
  > (impossible to find), Gauss, Leibniz, Plato, Newton or any other.

Didn't Gauss write in German?


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3iu6uw33g.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Vassil Nikolov <········@poboxes.com> writes:

> Didn't Gauss write in German?
> 

One of his master pieces, the Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, is in Latin.

-- 
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0308991429510001@ppp039-max03.twics.com>
> > is this 'more lines of COBOL than all...' bit
> > actually still true?
> > ok, when the only competition was FORTRAN,
> > LISP, ALGOL, PL/1, whatever, i'm sure it was but in  1999?

COBOL is *still* being used for new implementations of billing software
these days. Also, COBOL data structures and databases are being used
(CODASYL).

Take your phone bill or utilities bill as example. The chance is, that it
has been created by COBOL code. One strong incentive to use COBOL for
billing is the built in support of BCD (binary coded decimals), which
ensures there is no inaccurracy intruduced when converting numbers between
decimal and binary.

There is only very few languages who support that, such, that writing
arithmetic expressions can be done using infix notation. In many languages
there is no BCD at all and it would have to be bolted on and the libraries
rewritten from scratch. I was once taking part in the standardisation of
Modula-2 and had proposed BCDs to be specified in the standard so the
language could have been an alternative to using COBOL. Unfortunately, the
notion in the WG was such, that there would have been no infix expressions
with BCDs, so I withdrew my proposal, as it didn't make sense under these
circumstances.

LISP integers is about the only thing, that comes to my mind to offer
something to the needs of billing people in this regard (usually only two
decimal digits are required, so you just multiply everything by 100), also
ratios are helpful.

But unlike many LISP people, COBOL and billing software developers are
often people with an accounting background, they are not computer language
scientists. They are more likely to think in procedural ways than in OO
and they would have a severe problem with LISPs syntax. If someone would
write a language on top of LISP to take bookkeeper's accounting statements
as source, along with some features that make a transition from COBOL
easy, many people would embrace it.

Though I personally don't like it, I expect COBOL to continue a long life.


> I know a few programmers who have been working on Y2K issues for over a
> year. Most of their HLL work has been on COBOL. Some of these programs
> are so old that the documentation has been lost, and often nobody knows
> all of their functions or interfaces. There are few enough COBOL
> programmers left so that one of them came out of retirement to join the
> fun.

All this is true. Even worse. For many programs there is no source code.
They have been maintained for decades by patching their executables.

However, the Y2K bug is not really COBOL's fault. You can define date
fields to accommodate more than two digits. But, remember who these COBOL
programmers were: Accounting people. They knew memory was expensive and
they heard the cash register ringing every time they declared a variable,
hence the notion to shorten that where it felt appropriate.

> From this anecdotal evidence, I would say that COBOL is more alive than Latin.

You'd be surprised how alive Latin is. I remember math classes at
university, especially analytical geometry where our professors
recommended tons of books for us to read and the only one that was neither
in Ancient Greek nor in Latin would have been someting in French by Blaise
Pascal. Not a single recommendation for a book in English and many of
those books didn't have a publicly accessible translation at all. The
Greek ones all had translations into Latin, though. ;-)

Lingua latina vivanda est ;-)  -- no guarantees for grammatical correctness ;-)

benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Stig Hemmer
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ekvg120izl5.fsf@verden.pvv.ntnu.no>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
> However, the Y2K bug is not really COBOL's fault. You can define
> date fields to accommodate more than two digits.

There is a standard command to get the current date in COBOL.  This
command returned 2 digits for the year.  There is _no_ standard way of
getting the current century in COBOL.

There is a new ANSI COBOL standard in the works, which among other
things includes system support for four-digit years.  This standard
has an ETA of some time next year...  

I assume this is a standard which codifyies existing practice, so that
people can fix this already.  The timing is still ironic.  :-)

Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.

PS: I read a COBOL text book last revised in 1993.  It contained no
   mention of the Y2K problem anywhere.  Sigh.
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwiu6w4uyo.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
Stig Hemmer <····@pvv.ntnu.no> writes:

> There is a new ANSI COBOL standard in the works, which among other
> things includes system support for four-digit years.  This standard
> has an ETA of some time next year...  

I am laughing at the fact that in the year 9999 the only COBOL program
still running will cause the distruction the whole world :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m37lnc4um2.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> Take your phone bill or utilities bill as example. The chance is, that it
> has been created by COBOL code. One strong incentive to use COBOL for
> billing is the built in support of BCD (binary coded decimals), which
> ensures there is no inaccurracy intruduced when converting numbers between
> decimal and binary.
> 
> There is only very few languages who support that, such, that writing
> arithmetic expressions can be done using infix notation. In many languages
> there is no BCD at all and it would have to be bolted on and the libraries
> rewritten from scratch. I was once taking part in the standardisation of
> Modula-2 and had proposed BCDs to be specified in the standard so the
> language could have been an alternative to using COBOL. Unfortunately, the
> notion in the WG was such, that there would have been no infix expressions
> with BCDs, so I withdrew my proposal, as it didn't make sense under these
> circumstances.
> 

Ada has complete support for this type of thing, so you could have
stayed in the Pascal family ;-) 

I find it odd Ada has not been more successfull for things like
accounting, billing systems, etc. It's practically designed for it.

-- 
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A797B0.10EB@ieee.org>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > > is this 'more lines of COBOL than all...' bit
> > > actually still true?
> > > ok, when the only competition was FORTRAN,
> > > LISP, ALGOL, PL/1, whatever, i'm sure it was but in  1999?
> 
> COBOL is *still* being used for new implementations of billing software
> these days. Also, COBOL data structures and databases are being used
> (CODASYL).
> 
> Take your phone bill or utilities bill as example. The chance is, that it
> has been created by COBOL code. One strong incentive to use COBOL for
> billing is the built in support of BCD (binary coded decimals), which
> ensures there is no inaccurracy intruduced when converting numbers between
> decimal and binary.
> 
[Interestinh text snipped.]

I'm confused about the need for BCD. Surely, there can be no ambiguity
when converting (scaled) integer values to and from decimal notation for
I/O. Making the scaling factor 1000 to keep track of mils still leaves
room for representing plenty of dollars in a 32-bit signed int. (Few
transactions exceed 2 million.) By using a double, Forth can represent
in a single number more money that the treasuries, budgets, or debts of
most countries. What's the problem?
> 
> benjamin
> 
> --
> As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
> Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.

Please clue me in about ROT13.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qf9h0.1el.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:30:24 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>> As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
>> Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
>
>Please clue me in about ROT13.

( ROT13 is a simple substitution cypher, often used in the Internet back )
( when it first became really popular.  The residents of the Internet    )
( back then were all upright netizens, and there was no need for further )
( privacy measures.  Of course, today things are a bit different, but I  )
( digress.  Below is well factored Forth code to en/decrypt ROT13.  The  )
( same word is used for both.                                            )
(                                                                        )
( Usage:  S" Enter desired string here." 2DUP ROT13-String TYPE          )

: NOT ( f -- !f )               0= ;    ( Some Forths already have this. )
: EndOfString? ( u -- u f )	DUP 0= ;
: LowercaseLetter? ( ch -- f )  [CHAR] a [CHAR] z WITHIN ;
: ToUppercase ( ch -- ch' )     DUP LowercaseLetter? IF 32 XOR THEN ;
: A..M? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] M WITHIN ;
: A..Z? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] Z WITHIN ;
: Apply-ROT13 ( ch -- ch' )     DUP A..M? IF 13 + ELSE 13 - THEN ;
: ROT13-Char ( ch -- ch' )      DUP A..Z? IF Apply-ROT13 THEN ;

: ROT13-String ( c-addr u -- )
	BEGIN EndOfString? NOT
	WHILE >R DUP ·@ ROT13-Char OVER C! CHAR+ R> 1-
	REPEAT
	2DROP ;

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qfap3.1el.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 02:32:01 GMT, Samuel A. Falvo II <······@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:

Whoops.  In my prior post, I had forgotten about the utterly brain-dead (as
far as I'm concerned, outright BUG) behavior of the WITHIN ANSI Forth word.
Therefore, to make a CORRECT version of WITHIN, please prepend the following
definition, like so:

( This definition inherits from the existing ANSI definition of WITHIN )
: WITHIN (a b c -- f )		1+ WITHIN ;

Alternatively, you could make the following adjustments to retain ANSI
compatibility:

>: LowercaseLetter? ( ch -- f )  [CHAR] a [CHAR] z WITHIN ;

: LowercaseLetter? ( ch -- f)	[CHAR] a [CHAR] z 1+ WITHIN ;

>: A..M? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] M WITHIN ;
>: A..Z? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] Z WITHIN ;

: A..M? ( ch -- f )		ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] M 1+ WITHIN ;
: A..Z? ( ch -- f )		ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] Z 1+ WITHIN ;

All other program code remains the same.  I apologize for any confusion this
may have caused.

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A7B56A.2325@ieee.org>
Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 02:32:01 GMT, Samuel A. Falvo II <······@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
> 
> Whoops.  In my prior post, I had forgotten about the utterly brain-dead (as
> far as I'm concerned, outright BUG) behavior of the WITHIN ANSI Forth word.
> Therefore, to make a CORRECT version of WITHIN, please prepend the following
> definition, like so:
> 
> ( This definition inherits from the existing ANSI definition of WITHIN )
> : WITHIN (a b c -- f )          1+ WITHIN ;
> 
> Alternatively, you could make the following adjustments to retain ANSI
> compatibility:
> 
> >: LowercaseLetter? ( ch -- f )  [CHAR] a [CHAR] z WITHIN ;
> 
> : LowercaseLetter? ( ch -- f)   [CHAR] a [CHAR] z 1+ WITHIN ;
> 
> >: A..M? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] M WITHIN ;
> >: A..Z? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] Z WITHIN ;
> 
> : A..M? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] M 1+ WITHIN ;
> : A..Z? ( ch -- f )             ToUppercase [CHAR] A [CHAR] Z 1+ WITHIN ;
> 
> All other program code remains the same.  I apologize for any confusion this
> may have caused.
> 
> ==========================================================================
>       KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
>         DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
>     QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
>    Oceanside, CA   |......................................................

Thanks for the code, and particularly the algorithm. There was no
confusion, as I saw both posts at the same time.

I want to defend WITHIN as it stands. If it has a flaw, it is the name,
but I can't think of a better one. It works with signed and unsigned
numbers provided that you are consistent, and it executes much faster
(at least when assembly coded) than a more intuitive version would. Here
is my version in 69HC11 code for MAXforth, which lacked one:
CODE WITHIN ( n lo-limit hi-limit+1 -- f ) \ 101 cycles
 18EC , 00 C, \ LDD 0,Y  hi
 18A3 , 02 C, \ SUBD 2,Y sub lo
 18ED , 00 C, \ STD 0,Y  hi - lo
 18EC , 04 C, \ LDD 4,Y  n  
 18A3 , 02 C, \ SUBD 2,Y sub lo
 18A3 , 00 C, \ SUBD 0,Y sub hi - lo
 1808 ,       \ INY
 1808 ,       \ INY
 1808 ,       \ INY
 1808 ,       \ INY
 24 C, 06 C,  \ BCC no
 CC C, -1 ,   \ LDD -1
 7E C, FE47 , \ JMP NEXTSD
\ no
 CC C, 0 ,    \ LDD 0
 7E C, FE47 , \ JMP NEXTSD

It would take a few more cycles to replace "hi-limit+1" with "hi-limit"
in the stack comment. Since it is frequently used with constant
arguments, they can often be adjusted at compile time, and extra code so
isn't worth while.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qfhb7.1ov.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:37:14 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>I want to defend WITHIN as it stands. If it has a flaw, it is the name,
>but I can't think of a better one. It works with signed and unsigned

I think "BETWEEN" would be a much better name for it, given the current
semantics.  WITHIN, based on my learned use of the word, is all inclusive of
its arguments.  But then, there's nothing I can do -- except complain.  :-)

>in the stack comment. Since it is frequently used with constant
>arguments, they can often be adjusted at compile time, and extra code so
>isn't worth while.

This is true.

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A8620C.54C3@ieee.org>
Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:37:14 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
> >I want to defend WITHIN as it stands. If it has a flaw, it is the name,
> >but I can't think of a better one. It works with signed and unsigned
> 
> I think "BETWEEN" would be a much better name for it, given the current
> semantics.  WITHIN, based on my learned use of the word, is all inclusive of
> its arguments.  But then, there's nothing I can do -- except complain.  :-)
> 
> >in the stack comment. Since it is frequently used with constant
> >arguments, they can often be adjusted at compile time, and extra code so
> >isn't worth while.
> 
> This is true.
> 
> ==========================================================================
>       KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
>         DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
>     QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
>    Oceanside, CA   |......................................................

"BETWEEN" fixes one end, but breaks the other. What we need is a
combination: "BEIN" or "WITHTWEEN". BAH!

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Hansen
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a86a9e.7637552@192.168.2.34>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:53:48 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:

[...]
>"BETWEEN" fixes one end, but breaks the other. What we need is a
>combination: "BEIN" or "WITHTWEEN". BAH!

IN-RANGE might be suitably non-committal.

If you want to be specific, you might look at >=&< if you come from a
C or Pascal background, or .ge.lt. if you know FORTRAN.  My math is
rusty, but I think the brackets for a range that includes its
endpoints is [] while a range that doesn't include its endpoints is
(), so maybe [WITHIN) would work?  Although square brackets tend to
mean something different in Forth.

Just some random suggestions.  Use or ignore them as you will.
Regards,

                          -=Dave
Just my (10-010) cents
I can barely speak for myself, so I certainly can't speak for B-Tree.
Change is inevitable.  Progress is not.
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a8b9f1.246042@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:37:47 GMT, ·······@btree.com (Dave Hansen)
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:53:48 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>"BETWEEN" fixes one end, but breaks the other. What we need is a
>>combination: "BEIN" or "WITHTWEEN". BAH!
>
>IN-RANGE might be suitably non-committal.
>

Or, since shorter words are better, SPAN.
(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Gary Chanson
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <cl8q3.379$EG4.48402@news.shore.net>
Bruce McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
····················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:37:47 GMT, ·······@btree.com (Dave Hansen)
> wrote:
>
> Or, since shorter words are better, SPAN.

        I don't agree.  Short words tend to have ambiguous meanings and
language elements should be anything but ambiguous.  Also, I want those
shorter words left available for use in my applications.

--

-GJC
·········@shore.net
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a95e15.221186@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:22:05 -0400, "Gary Chanson"
<········@no.spam.shore.net> wrote:

>
>Bruce McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
>····················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:37:47 GMT, ·······@btree.com (Dave Hansen)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Or, since shorter words are better, SPAN.
>
>        I don't agree.  Short words tend to have ambiguous meanings and
>language elements should be anything but ambiguous.  Also, I want those
>shorter words left available for use in my applications.

	One vote in favour and one against, in the same message. IOW,
yes, if shorter words should be left alone, that's a vote against.
But the problem with WITHIN and BETWEEN is *false* precision: people
often take them to mean something other than [u1...u2).

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Marcel Hendrix
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7oc7ik$hb$1@news.IAEhv.nl>
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Bruce McFarling) wrote Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?

> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:22:05 -0400, "Gary Chanson"
> <········@no.spam.shore.net> wrote:
[..]

>>        I don't agree.  Short words tend to have ambiguous meanings and
>> language elements should be anything but ambiguous.  Also, I want those
>> shorter words left available for use in my applications.

>        One vote in favour and one against, in the same message. IOW,
> yes, if shorter words should be left alone, that's a vote against.
> But the problem with WITHIN and BETWEEN is *false* precision: people
> often take them to mean something other than [u1...u2).

From the view of a non-native English speaker, for your amusement.

When I started to learn programming (BASIC, FORTRAN on a PDP 11,
Z80 assembly language), I didn't know that the language keywords and 
mnemonics were supposed to mean something in English (why would a 
computer language be any different from ancient Greek, Russian, or
Welsh, languages I also didn't know?) You have to know technical 
English quite well to know what "mnemonic", "DJNZ", "PAD" or 
"ENCLOSE" mean. (As an example, I only just now realized why the PAD 
is called PAD!) 

Of course Forth was even "worse", because it is not even possible
to pronounce most of it (Read on to see why I actually applaud that). 

Was this hampering my learning computer languages, not to know English
well enough? I don't think so. Because I didn't know what the words
meant in English, I had no preconception about what they should do,
and assumed no false things (I had never problems with IF ELSE THEN).

I still like to document my code exclusively in English, because it 
helps me to abstract my thoughts. (Maybe I should turn to Russian.) 

So, for me, it is no problem if something is (incorrectly) called 
[INBETWEEN), WITHIN or BETWEEN . But never, ever, try to change existing
words. Once confusion sets in I might realize it's English. And fail 
trying to guess the correct meaning.

-marcel
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908990248010001@ppp038-max03.twics.com>
> From the view of a non-native English speaker, for your amusement.
> 
> When I started to learn programming (BASIC, FORTRAN on a PDP 11,
> Z80 assembly language), I didn't know that the language keywords and 
> mnemonics were supposed to mean something in English.

You have a point here (not only for non native speakers of English).

A good example is AppleScript, which is a bit pascalish in some aspects of
the syntax and a bit lispish in some aspects of its processing features
but most of all it had been designed with the aim to make it look like
plain English...

Example:
Tell application "Finder" to open every folder in the folder "System Folder".

This is nice to read, but it can be an awful task to debug once you have
made the mistake to assume you can just type in English in some fashion
and AppleScript will understand and process it. Apart from ambiguity in
natural language it is also very frustrating if something just can't be
written the way you did and you can't seem to figure out why it wouldn't
recognise your code.

On the other hand, this is by no means a reason to not design syntax and
keywords such that a human reader can easily figure out what the code
means.

Even as a non native speaker of English, you should see the difference if
you were to use one of these code obfuscating utilities on a Perl script
and then try to read it, let alone making sense of it. In many cases
obfuscating may not even be necessary as often humans can do a good job in
that discipline too. ;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Michael Schuerig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1dw8p6f.cpui4x1o7kthmN@[192.168.1.2]>
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:

> > From the view of a non-native English speaker, for your amusement.
> > 
> > When I started to learn programming (BASIC, FORTRAN on a PDP 11,
> > Z80 assembly language), I didn't know that the language keywords and
> > mnemonics were supposed to mean something in English.
> 
> You have a point here (not only for non native speakers of English).
> 
> A good example is AppleScript, which is a bit pascalish in some aspects of
> the syntax and a bit lispish in some aspects of its processing features
> but most of all it had been designed with the aim to make it look like
> plain English...
> 
> Example:
> Tell application "Finder" to open every folder in the folder "System Folder".
> 
> This is nice to read, but it can be an awful task to debug once you have
> made the mistake to assume you can just type in English in some fashion
> and AppleScript will understand and process it. Apart from ambiguity in
> natural language it is also very frustrating if something just can't be
> written the way you did and you can't seem to figure out why it wouldn't
> recognise your code.

Usually it's pretty easy to figure these things out in AppleScript and
in other programming environments that can be used interactively. Just
evaluate the subexpressions manually and look at the results. Well, to
be exact, in the case of AppleScript it's usually easy to find out
_what_ is happening. It's often not so easy to see _why_ it's happening,
if it's correct and what to do about it.

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig
···············@acm.org
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908991440050001@ppp048-max03.twics.com>
> Usually it's pretty easy to figure these things out in AppleScript and
> in other programming environments that can be used interactively. Just
> evaluate the subexpressions manually and look at the results.

I see. Just like scripting Eudora...

tell application "Eudora"
   number of mailboxes in mail folder "In"
=> 6
   name of every mailbox in mail folder "In"
=> "Fred Flintstone" -- oops, only one ? not a list of 6 ?
end tell

or

   subject of item (number of items in mailbox n) in mailbox m ... of mail
folder ""
-- or whatever complex structure of nested messages often yields ...
=> doesn't understand the message

however, assigning a few subexpressions to variables first and use them
instead works perfectly. Not quite so plain English anymore, hmmm ?

> Well, to be exact, in the case of AppleScript it's usually easy to find out
> _what_ is happening. It's often not so easy to see _why_ it's happening

which proves my point of plain English being too ambigous for programming.

On the downside of it, you have a debugger that doesn't know anything
about local variables, which is quite entertaining ...

and on the clarity of error messages side of things AppleScript can even
teach those Windoze boxes a lesson in fuzziness...

   "Some argument wasn't understood"

Yet another interesting form of ambiguity, especially as it quite often
turns out there was nothing wrong with any arguments at all.

I really do appreciate readability of code and I like the concept of
AppleScripting as an interface to AppleEvents, but as far as syntax is
concerned, I guess this time the guys at Apple have taken it a bit too far
:-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Michael Schuerig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1dwabew.92pj4q1ovo38gN@[192.168.1.2]>
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:

> I really do appreciate readability of code and I like the concept of
> AppleScripting as an interface to AppleEvents, but as far as syntax is
> concerned, I guess this time the guys at Apple have taken it a bit too far
> :-)

No, syntax isn't the problem at all, nor are the people at Apple (those
on the AS team, that is) responsible for most of the problems. Rather
blame application developers for their bad implementations of AS
support.

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig
···············@acm.org
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990446570001@ppp041-max03.twics.com>
In article <······················@[192.168.1.2]>, ········@acm.org
(Michael Schuerig) wrote:

> Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:
> 
> > I really do appreciate readability of code and I like the concept of
> > AppleScripting as an interface to AppleEvents, but as far as syntax is
> > concerned, I guess this time the guys at Apple have taken it a bit too far
> > :-)
> 
> No, syntax isn't the problem at all, nor are the people at Apple (those
> on the AS team, that is) responsible for most of the problems. Rather
> blame application developers for their bad implementations of AS
> support.

Fair argument.

Nevertheless, I believe that AppleScript tries to be too many things to
too many people at the same time and that a near natural language syntax
is opening doors to ambiguity.

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Gary Chanson
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <o_lq3.640$EG4.68362@news.shore.net>
Bruce McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
····················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:22:05 -0400, "Gary Chanson"
> <········@no.spam.shore.net> wrote:
>
> One vote in favour and one against, in the same message. IOW,
> yes, if shorter words should be left alone, that's a vote against.
> But the problem with WITHIN and BETWEEN is *false* precision: people
> often take them to mean something other than [u1...u2).

        This part I definitely agree with.  My version of WITHIN has always
been non-standard because it includes both end points.  I've never seen the
need for either the exclusive or unsymmetrical versions.  If I'm using
unsigned numbers, I use UWITHIN.

--

-GJC
·········@shore.net
From: Julian V. Noble
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7orvdu$okk$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
"Gary Chanson"  writes:
> 

	[ deleted ]
 
> This part I definitely agree with.  My version of WITHIN has always
> been non-standard because it includes both end points.  I've never seen the
> need for either the exclusive or unsymmetrical versions.  If I'm using
> unsigned numbers, I use UWITHIN.
> 
> --
> 
> -GJC
> ·········@shore.net
 
I would like to second that. I also much prefer the version that indicates

	L <= n <= U

to the version (ANS) that gives true if

	L <= n < U .

I understand the rationale for the ANS way, but I think Gary is right
for suggesting UWITHIN for unsigned integers. A better, clearer
solution.

 
-- 
Julian V. Noble
···@virginia.edu

"Elegance is for tailors!"	-- Ludwig Boltzmann
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B1E481.1B12@ieee.org>
Julian V. Noble wrote:
> 
> "Gary Chanson"  writes:
> >
> 
>         [ deleted ]
> 
> > This part I definitely agree with.  My version of WITHIN has always
> > been non-standard because it includes both end points.  I've never seen the
> > need for either the exclusive or unsymmetrical versions.  If I'm using
> > unsigned numbers, I use UWITHIN.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -GJC
> > ·········@shore.net
> 
> I would like to second that. I also much prefer the version that indicates
> 
>         L <= n <= U
> 
> to the version (ANS) that gives true if
> 
>         L <= n < U .
> 
> I understand the rationale for the ANS way, but I think Gary is right
> for suggesting UWITHIN for unsigned integers. A better, clearer
> solution.
> 
> 
> --
> Julian V. Noble
> ···@virginia.edu
> 
> "Elegance is for tailors!"      -- Ludwig Boltzmann

But a slower one. Once, that mattered for most, and now, it still
matters for some. What I ask, in all our interests, is that when you
change the function, also change the name. Keeping the name while making
the word do "what it should have done all along", is fragmenting and
destructive.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37aa1558.3790947@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
(note, this is a reply to gchanson, but my server won't work one of
the header lines because ``line 6 too long''.  Whatever in the hell
that means.)

On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:51:32 -0400, "Gary Chanson"
<········@no.spam.shore.net> wrote:

>        This part I definitely agree with.  My version of WITHIN has
>always been non-standard because it includes both end points.  I've never
>seen the need for either the exclusive or unsymmetrical versions.  If I'm
>using unsigned numbers, I use UWITHIN.

	Actually, it struck me that to mix metaphors, it could be
--WITHIN (predecrement top of stack, and then within those bounds).

	Or, in a Basic mixed metaphor, ``WITHIN$'', or as an ANS mixed
metaphor, ``S-WITHIN'', because of the connection with 

	( ca u ) CHARS OVER + ( ca-this ca-next ) S-WITHIN

(not checked, BTW: is that right?)

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: ······@cwcom.net
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <XEHq3.1611$Yu4.62734@news2-hme0.mcmail.com>
On 1999-08-05 ····@cc.newcastle.edu.au(BruceMcFarling) said:
   :One vote in favour and one against, in the same message. IOW,
   :yes, if shorter words should be left alone, that's a vote against.
   :But the problem with WITHIN and BETWEEN is *false* precision: people
   :often take them to mean something other than [u1...u2).

So call it [..) and use the freedom Forth gives us...
--
the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37AB57FE.2BF@ieee.org>
······@cwcom.net wrote:
> 
> On 1999-08-05 ····@cc.newcastle.edu.au(BruceMcFarling) said:
>    :One vote in favour and one against, in the same message. IOW,
>    :yes, if shorter words should be left alone, that's a vote against.
>    :But the problem with WITHIN and BETWEEN is *false* precision: people
>    :often take them to mean something other than [u1...u2).
> 
> So call it [..) and use the freedom Forth gives us...
> --
> the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself

It's OK to talk about what might have been, but assigning new names to
old words and especially old names for new words is VERY BAD practice.
WITHIN <--> WITHIN (not!), and NOT (returns 1|0) <--> NOT (returns
complement) are examples. TUCK <--> OVER, and <> <--> FLIP are bad
enough!

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce R. McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37abd290.3464139@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 17:47:42 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:

>······@cwcom.net wrote:

>It's OK to talk about what might have been, but assigning new names to
>old words and especially old names for new words is VERY BAD practice.
>WITHIN <--> WITHIN (not!), and NOT (returns 1|0) <--> NOT (returns
>complement) are examples. TUCK <--> OVER, and <> <--> FLIP are bad
>enough!

	OK, I surrender.  FROM-TO-JUST-LESS-THAN is is.
From: Walter Rottenkolber
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ad24e2@news.sierratel.com>
I'd often wondered why there was both WITHIN  (min <= n < max) and
BETWEEN (min <= n <= max), until I realized that Within was used to range
check the indexes for a Do Loop, and Between, the range of the indexes in an
array or other structure.

One of the hazards of a standard is that Words you thought  better were not
chosen. I rather like =:  instead of TO for the assignment of data to a
Value. Such is life!

Walter Rottenkolber

         ---------------------------------------------------
Bruce R. McFarling wrote in message >
>>It's OK to talk about what might have been, but assigning new names to
>>old words and especially old names for new words is VERY BAD practice.
>>WITHIN <--> WITHIN (not!), and NOT (returns 1|0) <--> NOT (returns
>>complement) are examples. TUCK <--> OVER, and <> <--> FLIP are bad
>>enough!
>
> OK, I surrender.  FROM-TO-JUST-LESS-THAN is is.
>
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABDE0E.5A8D@ieee.org>
Bruce R. McFarling wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 17:47:42 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> >······@cwcom.net wrote:
> 
> >It's OK to talk about what might have been, but assigning new names to
> >old words and especially old names for new words is VERY BAD practice.
> >WITHIN <--> WITHIN (not!), and NOT (returns 1|0) <--> NOT (returns
> >complement) are examples. TUCK <--> OVER, and <> <--> FLIP are bad
> >enough!
> 
>         OK, I surrender.  FROM-TO-JUST-LESS-THAN is is.

Peace! I must have been asleep. Anyhow, it's TUCK <--> UNDER, 
and >< <--> FLIP.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce R. McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37aca06a.1136612@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 03:19:42 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:

>> >WITHIN <--> WITHIN (not!), and NOT (returns 1|0) <--> NOT (returns
>> >complement) are examples. TUCK <--> OVER, and <> <--> FLIP are bad
>> >enough!
>> 
>>         OK, I surrender.  FROM-TO-JUST-LESS-THAN is is.
>
>Peace! I must have been asleep. Anyhow, it's TUCK <--> UNDER, 
>and >< <--> FLIP.

	I *promise* I'm not being stroppy here, but ... which FLIP is
that ><, the ``switch bytes order'' FLIP or the ``( a b c -- c b a )''
FLIP?
From: Mark Humphries
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7oidas$l74$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
  ····@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Bruce R. McFarling) wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 03:19:42 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:

[snip]

>>Peace! I must have been asleep. Anyhow, it's TUCK <--> UNDER,
>>and >< <--> FLIP.

>I *promise* I'm not being stroppy here, but ...
>which FLIP is that ><, the ``switch bytes order'' FLIP or
>the ``( a b c -- c b a )'' FLIP?

I think ( a b c -- c b a ) is more commonly named SPIN.
FLIP is more commonly the byte order reversal.

Cheers,
 Mark W. Humphries

Forth Chat Room on ICQ #37160535


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Bruce R. McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37acbcf1.8439868@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 22:52:15 GMT, Mark Humphries <···@intranetsys.com>
wrote:

>In article <················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
>  ····@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Bruce R. McFarling) wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 03:19:42 -0400, Jerry Avins <···@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Peace! I must have been asleep. Anyhow, it's TUCK <--> UNDER,
>>>and >< <--> FLIP.
>
>>I *promise* I'm not being stroppy here, but ...
>>which FLIP is that ><, the ``switch bytes order'' FLIP or
>>the ``( a b c -- c b a )'' FLIP?
>
>I think ( a b c -- c b a ) is more commonly named SPIN.
>FLIP is more commonly the byte order reversal.

That's good to know, since I first met FLIP to flip 1 and 3 around 2.
How does >< work with 32 byte cells?

12EF -> FE21 21FE 12FE 00FE or what?
From: Gary Chanson
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <c67r3.1002$EG4.151009@news.shore.net>
Bruce R. McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
·····················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
>
> How does >< work with 32 byte cells?

        On my system, it does the same thing that the 16 bit version does
(swaps the least byte with the next byte).

--

-GJC
·········@shore.net
From: J.v.d.Ven
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ojmh9$a4m$1@reader1.wxs.nl>
>Bruce R. McFarling <····@cc.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
>·····················@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
>>
>> How does >< work with 32 byte cells?
>
>        On my system, it does the same thing that the 16 bit version does
>(swaps the least byte with the next byte).

The same.
Do you need Lflip ?
Defined in toolset.f at http://home.wxs.nl/~josv

: flip          ( n - nflip )
   dup th ff and 8 lshift swap th ff00 and 8 rshift + ;

synonym ><      flip

\s
Jos
From: Gary Chanson
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgjr3.1049$EG4.165203@news.shore.net>
J.v.d.Ven <····@planet.nl> wrote in message
·················@reader1.wxs.nl...
>
> Do you need Lflip ?
> Defined in toolset.f at http://home.wxs.nl/~josv

        I have it (using a different name), but I don't think I've had any
reason to use it.

--

-GJC
·········@shore.net
From: Jerry Gitomer
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7o8f8m$29k$1@autumn.news.rcn.net>
Hi Jerry,

The problem is that you are thinking like an engineer, but the
people who use "Business Data Processing" think like accountants.
As far as an accountant is concerned 32-bits doesn't hold 6 and
fraction digits, but 6 digits.  So a 32-bit value will hold a
maximum of 999,999.  But, then when dealing with money that
32-bit value only holds 9,999.99.  If you go to 64 bits you can
represent a value with 12 integer digits and 2 fraction digits.
This is why COBOL (Sorry, I don't remember wether it was the
COBOL standard or IBM's COBOL implementation)  calls for 14
digits for operands and results in all arithmetic operations with
31 digit intermediate results in multiplication.

There is one advantage of BCD arithmetic that wasn't mentioned
and that is its ability to handle the addition and subtraction of
values with differing fraction digits without having to do the
multiplication and division by 10 operations you are forced into
when working with binary values.  (Multiplication is easy you
shift, save a copy of the shifted result, shift twice and then
add back the saved result of the first shift, but division
requires a series of subtract and shift operations that take a
relatively long time to execute.

regards
Jerry Gitomer


Jerry Avins wrote in message <·············@ieee.org>...
|Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
|>
|> > > is this 'more lines of COBOL than all...' bit
|> > > actually still true?
|> > > ok, when the only competition was FORTRAN,
|> > > LISP, ALGOL, PL/1, whatever, i'm sure it was but in  1999?
|>
|> COBOL is *still* being used for new implementations of billing
software
|> these days. Also, COBOL data structures and databases are
being used
|> (CODASYL).
|>
|> Take your phone bill or utilities bill as example. The chance
is, that it
|> has been created by COBOL code. One strong incentive to use
COBOL for
|> billing is the built in support of BCD (binary coded
decimals), which
|> ensures there is no inaccurracy intruduced when converting
numbers between
|> decimal and binary.
|>
|[Interestinh text snipped.]
|
|I'm confused about the need for BCD. Surely, there can be no
ambiguity
|when converting (scaled) integer values to and from decimal
notation for
|I/O. Making the scaling factor 1000 to keep track of mils still
leaves
|room for representing plenty of dollars in a 32-bit signed int.
(Few
|transactions exceed 2 million.) By using a double, Forth can
represent
|in a single number more money that the treasuries, budgets, or
debts of
|most countries. What's the problem?
|>
|> benjamin
|>
|> --
|> As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address
here.
|> Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear
text.
|
|Please clue me in about ROT13.
|
|Jerry
|--
|Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
|of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
|from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
|---------------------------------------------------------
|--
|Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
|of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
|from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
|---------------------------------------------------------
From: Sunil Mishra
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <efy4sighx6m.fsf@courtland.cc.gatech.edu>
"Jerry Gitomer" <········@erols.com> writes:

> Hi Jerry,
> 
> The problem is that you are thinking like an engineer, but the
> people who use "Business Data Processing" think like accountants.
> As far as an accountant is concerned 32-bits doesn't hold 6 and
> fraction digits, but 6 digits.  So a 32-bit value will hold a

This has me confused. What kind of encoding are you talking about? 2^31
(with 1 digit for sign) ~ 2*10^9. The only other approach I know of (I'm
not sure if this is in fact BCD representation, for some reason EBCDIC
keeps coming to mind and confusing me further) is to encode each digit as
four bits, which gives 7 digits plus four left over for handling sign etc.

Neither of these are sufficient by any means to accurately handle large
sums of money, so I see your point despite the above confusion.

Thanks,

Sunil
From: Jerry Gitomer
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ob356$2uq$1@autumn.news.rcn.net>
Sorry folks I goofed.

I was thinking of 32-bit floating point, not 32-bit integer when
I wrote that.  Nevertheless 9 decimal digits (7 integer and 2
fraction when dealing with currency) just isn't enough for most
accounting applications.

regards
Jerry Gitomer


Sunil Mishra wrote in message ...
|"Jerry Gitomer" <········@erols.com> writes:
|
|> Hi Jerry,
|>
|> The problem is that you are thinking like an engineer, but the
|> people who use "Business Data Processing" think like
accountants.
|> As far as an accountant is concerned 32-bits doesn't hold 6
and
|> fraction digits, but 6 digits.  So a 32-bit value will hold a
|
|This has me confused. What kind of encoding are you talking
about? 2^31
|(with 1 digit for sign) ~ 2*10^9. The only other approach I know
of (I'm
|not sure if this is in fact BCD representation, for some reason
EBCDIC
|keeps coming to mind and confusing me further) is to encode each
digit as
|four bits, which gives 7 digits plus four left over for handling
sign etc.
|
|Neither of these are sufficient by any means to accurately
handle large
|sums of money, so I see your point despite the above confusion.
|
|Thanks,
|
|Sunil
From: Stan Barr
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qik5s.vql.stanb@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:01:24 -0400, Jerry Gitomer <········@erols.com> wrote:
>Sorry folks I goofed.
>
>I was thinking of 32-bit floating point, not 32-bit integer when
>I wrote that.  Nevertheless 9 decimal digits (7 integer and 2
>fraction when dealing with currency) just isn't enough for most
>accounting applications.
>

Absolutely...I used to work in payroll, and we had to deal with calculations
involving hourly rates like 6.4875 (UK pounds) per hour on a payroll that
totalled 1.5 million so we needed at least 11 significant digits (and had to
be accurate to a penny!).   

-- 
Cheers,
Stan Barr  ·····@dial.pipex.com

The future was never like this!
From: Jerry Avins
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A9C465.167F@ieee.org>
Jerry Gitomer wrote:
> 
> Sorry folks I goofed.
> 
> I was thinking of 32-bit floating point, not 32-bit integer when
> I wrote that.  Nevertheless 9 decimal digits (7 integer and 2
> fraction when dealing with currency) just isn't enough for most
> accounting applications.
> 
> regards
> Jerry Gitomer

Yes. That's why I pointed out that 64 bits is enough. .. Jerry
> 
> Sunil Mishra wrote in message ...
> |"Jerry Gitomer" <········@erols.com> writes:
> |
> |> Hi Jerry,
> |>
> |> The problem is that you are thinking like an engineer, but the
> |> people who use "Business Data Processing" think like
> accountants.
> |> As far as an accountant is concerned 32-bits doesn't hold 6
> and
> |> fraction digits, but 6 digits.  So a 32-bit value will hold a
> |
> |This has me confused. What kind of encoding are you talking
> about? 2^31
> |(with 1 digit for sign) ~ 2*10^9. The only other approach I know
> of (I'm
> |not sure if this is in fact BCD representation, for some reason
> EBCDIC
> |keeps coming to mind and confusing me further) is to encode each
> digit as
> |four bits, which gives 7 digits plus four left over for handling
> sign etc.
> |
> |Neither of these are sufficient by any means to accurately
> handle large
> |sums of money, so I see your point despite the above confusion.
> |
> |Thanks,
> |
> |Sunil
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130303b3cd9142c9bf@195.138.129.99>
Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:                [1999-08-04 02:32 +0000]

  > ( ROT13 is a simple substitution cypher, often used in the Internet back )
  > ( when it first became really popular.  The residents of the Internet    )
  > ( back then were all upright netizens,

Were they?

  > and there was no need for further )
  > ( privacy measures.  Of course, today things are a bit different, but I  )
  > ( digress.
  [...]

ROT13 is not a privacy measure but simply a method to `hide' something
from being perceived in an immediate fashion.  (Well, perhaps one could
argue that this is also privacy but I doubt that such a generalisation is
useful.)

For example, the answer to a posted problem would be ROT13'ed, not
to keep it secret but to avoid depriving readers of the pleasure of
figuring it out by themselves.

Most, if not all, mail programs and news readers provide ROT13 as a
built-in function.

(See also the Jargon File/The Hacker's Dictionary.)


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a89844.6811444@judy.x-ray.local>
Inffvy Avxbybi <········@cbobkrf.pbz> wrote:
>ROT13 is not a privacy measure but simply a method to `hide' something
>from being perceived in an immediate fashion.  (Well, perhaps one could
>argue that this is also privacy but I doubt that such a generalisation is
>useful.)
>
>For example, the answer to a posted problem would be ROT13'ed, not
>to keep it secret but to avoid depriving readers of the pleasure of
>figuring it out by themselves.
>
>Most, if not all, mail programs and news readers provide ROT13 as a
>built-in function.

ROT13 applied to Benjamins email address ········@xntv.pbz has also the
nice features not to give a false positive which i wouldn't have
recognized if so. i didn't advise my mailer to send a short answer back
when it was read.
the first attempt to mail him bounced back.

-- 
Ervav Heona
--                                         
Reini
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408991820280001@ppp036-max03.twics.com>
In article <·············@ieee.org>, ·······@erols.com wrote:

> I'm confused about the need for BCD. Surely, there can be no ambiguity
> when converting (scaled) integer values to and from decimal notation for
> I/O. Making the scaling factor 1000 to keep track of mils still leaves
> room for representing plenty of dollars in a 32-bit signed int. (Few
> transactions exceed 2 million.) By using a double, Forth can represent
> in a single number more money that the treasuries, budgets, or debts of
> most countries. What's the problem?

The problem is that a very samll error can mount up to a large sum and
that messes up the balance sheet. If there is only one penny missing on
the balance sheet the accounts cannot be closed for end of month or end of
year processing.

Example:

Divide 10 by 3 -> 3.33333333
multiply by 3 again -> 9.99999999

thus 10 equals 9.99999999

If you stay within the decimal system (BCDs) you can accommodate for this
by rounding up, but if you convert between decimal and binary, then you
get rounding errors with numbers that are rational numbers in decimal but
irrational numbers in binary representation. In a serious of financial
transactions these errors can then accumulate to substantial errors.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Walter Rottenkolber
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a8ddd1@news.sierratel.com>
It wasn't (or maybe it was) that long ago that some versions of languages
had their math routines in BCD just so you could write programs for business
that  avoided the conversion errors. MBASIC (Microsoft) ran in binary,
whereas CBASIC (Digital Research) used BCD. Because BCD math runs slower, a
program in CBASIC, even though compiled into a p-code, was slower than
MBASIC. Some CPU's have a packed BCD math mode that the program could switch
in as needed to speed things up.

Walter Rottenkolber

-------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote in message ...
>In article <·············@ieee.org>, ·······@erols.com wrote:
>
>> I'm confused about the need for BCD. Surely, there can be no ambiguity
>> when converting (scaled) integer values to and from decimal notation for
>> I/O. Making the scaling factor 1000 to keep track of mils still leaves
>> room for representing plenty of dollars in a 32-bit signed int. (Few
>> transactions exceed 2 million.) By using a double, Forth can represent
>> in a single number more money that the treasuries, budgets, or debts of
>> most countries. What's the problem?
>
>The problem is that a very samll error can mount up to a large sum and
>that messes up the balance sheet. If there is only one penny missing on
>the balance sheet the accounts cannot be closed for end of month or end of
>year processing.
>
>Example:
>
>Divide 10 by 3 -> 3.33333333
>multiply by 3 again -> 9.99999999
>
>thus 10 equals 9.99999999
>
>If you stay within the decimal system (BCDs) you can accommodate for this
>by rounding up, but if you convert between decimal and binary, then you
>get rounding errors with numbers that are rational numbers in decimal but
>irrational numbers in binary representation. In a serious of financial
>transactions these errors can then accumulate to substantial errors.
>
>Benjamin
>
>--
>As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
>Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: David Barts
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <davidb.933785690@ricochet.net>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

>If you stay within the decimal system (BCDs) you can accommodate for this
>by rounding up, but if you convert between decimal and binary, then you
>get rounding errors with numbers that are rational numbers in decimal but
>irrational numbers in binary representation. In a serious of financial
>transactions these errors can then accumulate to substantial errors.

Nit: Rationality of a number has nothing to do with the base it is
written in.  Pi is irrational whether you write it in base, base 10,
or base 43.  Likewise 8/11 is always rational, whether you write it
as 8/11, 8/B, or 1000/1011.

However, whether or not a given rational number can be represented exactly
in a finite number of places to the right of the radix point _does_ very
much depend on the base.  (It happens whenever the prime factors of the
denominator of the fraction include numbers that are not prime factors
of the base being used.  So base 2 is particularly bad for fractional
numbers when it comes to exactness -- the only quantities less than
$1 that can be exactly represented using binary fixed or floating point
are $.25, $.50, and $.75.)

-- 
       David W. Barts (·····@ricochet.net) / http://www.scn.org/~davidb
      LEGAL NOTICE:  I am a WASHINGTON STATE RESIDENT.  Unsolicited bulk
       E-mail may be billed $500 each in accordance with Chapter 19 RCW.
From: Robert W. Cunningham
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A88338.6F24F8B2@acm.org>
David Barts wrote:

> ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
>
> >If you stay within the decimal system (BCDs) you can accommodate for this
> >by rounding up, but if you convert between decimal and binary, then you
> >get rounding errors with numbers that are rational numbers in decimal but
> >irrational numbers in binary representation. In a serious of financial
> >transactions these errors can then accumulate to substantial errors.
>
> Nit: Rationality of a number has nothing to do with the base it is
> written in.  Pi is irrational whether you write it in base, base 10,
> or base 43.  Likewise 8/11 is always rational, whether you write it
> as 8/11, 8/B, or 1000/1011.

NitPick:  Pi base Pi = EXACTLY 1

Nothing irrational there!  But the expression of base Pi values in other bases will generally require them to have their own expression for Pi, which may be irrational when expressed in that base.  Or, conversely, expressing what is a whole number in another base may well prove to be an irrational number in base Pi.

Like many things in life, who is "rational" depends on your point of view.  Now, let's talk about base e, and expressing the value 1.0 base Pi in base e...  And renormalization to base e is a well known calculus trick.  That kind of renormalization I think I actually understand.  It is renormalization using transfinite numbers that fries my neurons.  And there are those who count using transfinite bases!  (Not just transfinite set ordinality, but actual counting!)

> However, whether or not a given rational number can be represented exactly
> in a finite number of places to the right of the radix point _does_ very
> much depend on the base.  (It happens whenever the prime factors of the
> denominator of the fraction include numbers that are not prime factors
> of the base being used.  So base 2 is particularly bad for fractional
> numbers when it comes to exactness -- the only quantities less than
> $1 that can be exactly represented using binary fixed or floating point
> are $.25, $.50, and $.75.)

And (trivially) $0.00

-BobC
From: Bruce R. McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a8fe07.2358040@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:15:20 -0700, "Robert W. Cunningham"
<········@acm.org> wrote:

>> Nit: Rationality of a number has nothing to do with the base it is
>> written in.  Pi is irrational whether you write it in base, base 10,
>> or base 43.  Likewise 8/11 is always rational, whether you write it
>> as 8/11, 8/B, or 1000/1011.
>
>NitPick:  Pi base Pi = EXACTLY 1
>
>Nothing irrational there!  But the expression of base Pi values in other bases will generally require them to have their own expression for Pi, which may be irrational when expressed in that base.  Or, conversely, expressing what is a whole number in another base may well prove to be an irrational number 
>in base Pi.

	semantic dispute.  In mathematics, rationality is defined as
``for r there exists two integers i and j such that i/j = r''.  Pi not
being an integer, pi / pi = 1 doesn't qualify.

	but its clear that what is meant here by ``rational with base
n'' is ``for r there exists an integer i such at i/n = r''.  i forget
what that's called right now, and this class is dismissed, since I
have another one to get to.
From: Johan Kullstam
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u672uqo7n.fsf@res.raytheon.com>
····@cc.newcastle.edu (Bruce R. McFarling) writes:

> On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:15:20 -0700, "Robert W. Cunningham"
> <········@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> >> Nit: Rationality of a number has nothing to do with the base it is
> >> written in.  Pi is irrational whether you write it in base, base 10,
> >> or base 43.  Likewise 8/11 is always rational, whether you write it
> >> as 8/11, 8/B, or 1000/1011.
> >
> >NitPick:  Pi base Pi = EXACTLY 1

even more nit-picky: Pi base Pi would be written 10.  Pi isn't the
multiplicative identity `1' no matter how you slice it.  `10 in base Pi'
would still be irrational since it's not an integer.  being an integer
or rational number does not depend on your particular choice of
notation.

[sorry to reply to the double quoted person - my newserver has
unbelievably poor article retention]

[more valid arguments that pi is not an integer elided]

-- 
johan kullstam
From: Prof. Gunter Bengel
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <vj2672u7qca.fsf@math.uni-muenster.de>
"Robert W. Cunningham" <········@acm.org> writes:


> 
> NitPick:  Pi base Pi = EXACTLY 1
> 
> Nothing irrational there!  But the expression of base Pi values in other bases will generally require them to have their own expression for Pi, which may be irrational when expressed in that base.  Or, conversely, expressing what is a whole number in another base may well prove to be an irrational number in base Pi.


Wrong.
10 base 10 is 10, not 1, and Pi base Pi is 10 and is irrational
because its not the quotient of two natural numbers. Of course it will
be extremely difficult to see that a number representet in base Pi is
an integer.The fact that a number is irrational does not depend on the
base it is written in.

Gunter
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a94fb0.86181842@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:15:20 -0700, "Robert W. Cunningham"
<········@acm.org> wrote:

>NitPick:  Pi base Pi = EXACTLY 1

Wouldn't that be Pi base Pi = EXACTLY 10?

Like, you know, 10 base 10 = EXACTLY 10?

And 16 base 16 = EXACTLY 10? :)

>Nothing irrational there!

A lot of irrationality there. Representability and irrationality are
orthogonal issues. You can choose to represent sqrt(2) as an orange,
and it'll be a very irrational orange indeed. You know, in my school
days an irrational number wasn't defined like the one that cannot be
expressed as a ratio of two arbitrarily chosen numbers, but the one
that cannot be expressed AS THE RATIO OF TWO *INTEGER* NUMBERS
(naturals, if you're talking about positive irrationals).

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN6lDBP4C0a0jUw5YEQLVJgCfWtfgThlOKmBYtnmLNI4RbY7LlS4AoP3e
iIsmaCFeUiBF85sZQtzlebEp
=JzLq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ACB1A8.722C83FE@gmx.de>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> If you stay within the decimal system (BCDs) you can accommodate for this
> by rounding up, but if you convert between decimal and binary, then you
> get rounding errors with numbers that are rational numbers in decimal but
> irrational numbers in binary representation. In a serious of financial
> transactions these errors can then accumulate to substantial errors.

Financial transactions have rules that are completely solvable by using
integer math. If you have your integers in cents and your intermediate
results in rounded to -infinity half cents, you can do most of the
stuff. Some things are more complicated, e.g. the rounding rules for
transactions in Euro and one of the Euro member currencies. You must
round all the single positions so that the sum gives the same in Euro
and e.g. DM if converted in total and rounded to nearest cent/Pfennig.
This is not more easy in BCD than integer.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
From: Stan Barr
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qt68j.b0r.stanb@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 00:22:32 +0200, Bernd Paysan <············@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>Financial transactions have rules that are completely solvable by using
>integer math. If you have your integers in cents and your intermediate
>results in rounded to -infinity half cents, you can do most of the
>stuff. Some things are more complicated, e.g. the rounding rules for
>transactions in Euro and one of the Euro member currencies. You must
>round all the single positions so that the sum gives the same in Euro
>and e.g. DM if converted in total and rounded to nearest cent/Pfennig.
>This is not more easy in BCD than integer.
>

True, but for any reasonably large company, 32-bit integers are not
big enough to accomodate the full range of values with sufficient
precision to apply rounding correctly. 

-- 
Cheers,
Stan Barr  ·····@dial.pipex.com

The future was never like this!
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qu3et.vbh.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On 9 Aug 1999 17:05:36 GMT, Stan Barr <·····@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>True, but for any reasonably large company, 32-bit integers are not
>big enough to accomodate the full range of values with sufficient
>precision to apply rounding correctly. 

Then use bigger integers.  :)

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908990550480001@ppp002-max03.twics.com>
In article <·················@gmx.de>, Bernd Paysan <············@gmx.de> wrote:

> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > If you stay within the decimal system (BCDs) you can accommodate for this
> > by rounding up, but if you convert between decimal and binary, then you
> > get rounding errors with numbers that are rational numbers in decimal but
> > irrational numbers in binary representation. In a serious of financial
> > transactions these errors can then accumulate to substantial errors.
> 
> Financial transactions have rules that are completely solvable by using
> integer math. If you have your integers in cents and your intermediate
> results in rounded to -infinity half cents, you can do most of the
> stuff. Some things are more complicated, e.g. the rounding rules for
> transactions in Euro and one of the Euro member currencies. You must
> round all the single positions so that the sum gives the same in Euro
> and e.g. DM if converted in total and rounded to nearest cent/Pfennig.
> This is not more easy in BCD than integer.

I am not suggesting that BCD is the answer to all the problems of
financial math. However, BCD arithmetic in COBOL has been perceived the
number one tool for financial math as it offers some advantages and that
has contributed to COBOL's wide spread use in billing related
applications.

Two other major factors for the success of COBOL are CICS (a widely used
transaction monitoring system) and DB2 (the standard database on IBM M/F).
COBOL is very well integrated with both. In fact I don't know of any other
development environment for CICS.

Even if you were to come up with a superior Lisp based development
environment for CICS ... try to explain the owner of the project, who is
probably sitting on the board of directors of the bank, that you are going
to do the project in Lisp, where all the rest of the world is doing it in
COBOL. That could be quite an interesting situation ultimately leading to
your release from the project.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Bart Lateur
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37af8a15.1166222@news.skynet.be>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

>Even if you were to come up with a superior Lisp based development
>environment for CICS ... try to explain the owner of the project, who is
>probably sitting on the board of directors of the bank, that you are going
>to do the project in Lisp, where all the rest of the world is doing it in
>COBOL. That could be quite an interesting situation ultimately leading to
>your release from the project.

Try explaining to them that you are going to use a device called a
"computer", while the whole world does it by hand...

Urm... that's all in the past, already, isn't it? So when did this
"technological conservatism" started to creep (back) in?

	Bart.
From: Philip Preston
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7omn86$c7e$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
Bart Lateur wrote in message <················@news.skynet.be>...
>Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
>
>>Even if you were to come up with a superior Lisp based development
>>environment for CICS ... try to explain the owner of the project, who is
>>probably sitting on the board of directors of the bank, that you are going
>>to do the project in Lisp, where all the rest of the world is doing it in
>>COBOL. That could be quite an interesting situation ultimately leading to
>>your release from the project.
>
>Try explaining to them that you are going to use a device called a
>"computer", while the whole world does it by hand...
>
>Urm... that's all in the past, already, isn't it? So when did this
>"technological conservatism" started to creep (back) in?

I worked for a utility company in the mid '70s. The software for billing
domestic customers was written in PL/1 not COBOL. The tariff options for
business customers were so excruciatingly complex that some accountants were
able to make a career from specialising solely in advising businesses which
tariff system to choose. The billing for these accounts was performed by
mechanical punch card machines. While I was working there they started to
computerise the business accounts (again using PL/1) because the only person
who fully understood how the mechanical system worked was approaching
retirement.

Philip.
Member of FIG-UK  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/aborigine/forth.htm
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990231210001@ppp009-max03.twics.com>
> Try explaining to them that you are going to use a device called a
> "computer", while the whole world does it by hand...
> 
> Urm... that's all in the past, already, isn't it? So when did this
> "technological conservatism" started to creep (back) in?

The financial world has always been very conservative. They have got a lot
of money to loose, that makes them somewhat reluctant to change as long as
things are perceived to work reasonably well.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: David Thornley
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ooLt3.3910$Qn4.454974@ptah.visi.com>
In article <································@ppp009-max03.twics.com>,
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:
>
>> Urm... that's all in the past, already, isn't it? So when did this
>> "technological conservatism" started to creep (back) in?
>
>The financial world has always been very conservative. They have got a lot
>of money to loose, that makes them somewhat reluctant to change as long as
>things are perceived to work reasonably well.
>
ISTM that, to the average company, the MIS is something they have to
do and have to pay for, so the potential benefit of improving the way
they do things is seen as reducing the cost.  This leads to conservatism,
since they see better ways to do things (e.g., Common Lisp) as having
a fairly small upside (reducing the cost of the MIS department) and
a large downside (causing vital systems to fail).  

Ideally, a software company would be less conservative, but I worked
for one that seemed to consider the development division as one
that they had to have and had to pay for.

This seems to imply that advances in software engineering are going to
come into financial institutions from outside, probably in the form
of new functionality with user customization.  (Which could probably
best be done in Common Lisp; it seems to be the best way to create
a seamlessly extensible package.)



--
David H. Thornley                        | If you want my opinion, ask.
·····@thornley.net                       | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
From: Michael Schuerig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1dw8s2y.e4sn0d10wwjbmN@[192.168.1.2]>
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:

> I am not suggesting that BCD is the answer to all the problems of
> financial math. However, BCD arithmetic in COBOL has been perceived the
> number one tool for financial math as it offers some advantages and that
> has contributed to COBOL's wide spread use in billing related
> applications.

I'm probably only showing my ignorance here, but what's the big deal
with _built-in_ BCD? If you need BCD arithmetic you can probably get a
suitable library for about any programming language.

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig
···············@acm.org
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
From: Christopher B. Browne
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qs945.agl.cbbrowne@knuth.brownes.org>
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 00:21:53 +0200, Michael Schuerig <········@acm.org>
posted:
>Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:
>> I am not suggesting that BCD is the answer to all the problems of
>> financial math. However, BCD arithmetic in COBOL has been perceived the
>> number one tool for financial math as it offers some advantages and that
>> has contributed to COBOL's wide spread use in billing related
>> applications.
>
>I'm probably only showing my ignorance here, but what's the big deal
>with _built-in_ BCD? If you need BCD arithmetic you can probably get a
>suitable library for about any programming language.

The big deal is that if it's not built-in, then doing BCD arithmetic
becomes a significant *pain.*

It's not bad with a Lisp; it would be entirely reasonable to create
a defun for "bcd+" which would be akin to +.  CLOS could nicely handle
dispatching bcd+ for you automagically.

Even with Scheme, it wouldn't be *that* painful to work with BCD values,
as it's "just another object type."

But in languages like C, Pascal, or Java, where arithmetic operators
are well-defined, but not extensible, it gets Real Ugly.

In C, it becomes something like:

bcd a, b, c;
gotta_do_something_special_to_read(&a);
gotta_do_something_special_to_read(&b);
add_bcd (a, b, &c);

The above simply reads in two BCD values, and adds them together.

What you'd *want* would be something like:

bcd a, b, c;
scanf("%bcd %bcd\n", &a, &b);

c = a+b;
printf("%bcd plus %bcd = %bcd\n", a, b, c);

The problem is that (heh, heh!) you effectively have to transform anything
that manipulates BCD values into a pseudofunctional form.  

You can't use the native operators to work with the values.

Working with BCD thereby becomes outstandingly ugly, as instead of being
able to use normal operators, you have to do everything using library
calls.

It's not nearly so bad in C++, as it *can* do operator overloading,
and you can define customized versions of arithmetic operators to work
with such things.  But C++ has its own entertainments...
-- 
"If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...  
.... Oh, wait a minute, he already does."
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwzp092q14.fsf@world.std.com>
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
  http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]

···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> Though I personally don't like it, I expect COBOL to continue a long life.

Choice of language should be like choice of religion.  It's one thing to
say you like your own and wish others would join you.  It's quite another
to dislike what others use.  If someone has made a language choice that they
are happy with, I'd advocate we all learn to live with that.  There's a fine
line between "friendly advocacy" and "intrusive evangelism".  The best 
evengelism is leading a good and productive life, and waiting for people to
come inquire of you how you did that.

Besides, if I recall right, COBOL has an object-oriented substrate for those
that like that kind of thing.

If COBOL programmers are calling for more, then obviously they are best
suited to know what they need and their community leaders should take
heed.  But who are we to stand outside and say what they need?  If they're
happy with what they have--well, we could all do worse than to be happy
with what we had, wherever that happens in our lives.
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwk8rdjjlw.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

> [ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
>   http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
> 
> ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
> 
> > Though I personally don't like it, I expect COBOL to continue a long life.
> 
> Choice of language should be like choice of religion.

Does Lisp have Buddha's nature? :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A6CBDA.A3BBFB3C@pindar.com>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:

> Does Lisp have Buddha's nature? :)

Which prompts the question: What is the sound of one hand consing?

Cheers,

:-) will
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-0308991257210001@pbg3.lavielle.com>
In article <··············@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>, Marco Antoniotti <·······@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote:

> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> 
> > [ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
> >   http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
> > 
> > ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
> > 
> > > Though I personally don't like it, I expect COBOL to continue a long life.
> > 
> > Choice of language should be like choice of religion.
> 
> Does Lisp have Buddha's nature? :)

What sound is made by a single parentheses?
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7672xqg9f.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
>> Choice of language should be like choice of religion.

> Does Lisp have Buddha's nature? :)

Sure. Thou shallst see this truth when thou knowest what one matched
parenthesis lookest like :-)

                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0308992102440001@ppp045-max03.twics.com>
> > Though I personally don't like it, I expect COBOL to continue a long life.
> 
> Choice of language should be like choice of religion.

Disagree. Choice of language should be like picking a screwdriver or
whatever other tool out of a toolbox for a particular task. It doesn't get
the job done to insist on a hammer for drilling a hole, because you like
it better.

> It's one thing to
> say you like your own and wish others would join you.  It's quite another
> to dislike what others use.  If someone has made a language choice that they
> are happy with, I'd advocate we all learn to live with that.  There's a fine
> line between "friendly advocacy" and "intrusive evangelism".

By no means have I been involved in "intrusive evangelism". I am confident
you won't be able to uphold that statement if you read my posting again
thoroughly.

First, there is nothing wrong with personal likes and dislikes. Nowhere
did I make a statement like "because I don't like it you must not use it"
and you should not interpret that into it.

Secondly, I have explained why COBOL is still in demand, illustrated with
a technical requirement (BCDs) that COBOL meets very well and with a
reflection on the fact, that people with an accounting background are
looking for different things in a programming language than computer
scientists, hence COBOL not LISP.

I have also said that the Y2K bug is not COBOL's fault (it is often
wrongly assumed to have caused the Y2K problem). And if you want to accuse
me for blaming the COBOL programmers' accounting background, that would
again be a misinterpretation. The COBOL programmers who used 2 digit dates
were struggling not to waste resources, I wish one could say that of many
programmers today.

The Y2K problem has been caused by the IT managers who ignored the fact
that the problem existed and did not take proper action when it was still
early to do so.

> If COBOL programmers are calling for more, then obviously they are best
> suited to know what they need and their community leaders should take
> heed.  But who are we to stand outside and say what they need?  If they're
> happy with what they have--well, we could all do worse than to be happy
> with what we had, wherever that happens in our lives.

You seem to assume that anyone is writing software just for fun. This is
not the case in a commercial context. It is not the COBOL programmers that
have to be kept happy with the choice of tools, but the customers who pay
for the product and related services, being provided by using these tools.

In my industry, which is telecommunications, there is big difficulties to
get billing systems to do what the market asks for, not in terms of
accuracy, but in terms of flexibility and time to market. While COBOL does
provide an excellent facility to deal with BCD numbers and serves the need
for accuracy, it hinders the development of software flexible enough to
keep pace with the market.

We are just one of many companies, trying to identify tools suitable to
deliver  smarter software, that can better and faster meet the
requirements.

Let me put it that way, if a telecom operator has paid 10 million US$ for
a billing system, and a further 25 million US$ for it's customisation only
to be told, "Short Message Service with more than one tariff group ? No,
our software can't handle that. It will cost you another 25 million if you
want that. You have to acknowledge it is very difficult to customise these
things because our System is plain COBOL" ...

... then, I claim the right for that paying customer to say "I don't like
COBOL, you must not use it". The paying customer is the only authority
here.

And companies are asking for more flexibility in billing systems these
days. COBOL will have to evolve, where you have quoted a very interesting
example or other languages will have to meet the requirements for BCD
arithmetics better than they do now.

Besides, the topic of the threat has to do with survival of languages in a
changing environment. Both LISP and COBOL have survived a long time, they
also have experienced changes to adapt to their environment. How long they
will survive, will depend on how fit they are for their respective
environments.

It is not about religion, it is about meeting customer requirements.

regards
Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Lieven Marchand
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3672w4uj0.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> You seem to assume that anyone is writing software just for fun. This is
> not the case in a commercial context. It is not the COBOL programmers that
> have to be kept happy with the choice of tools, but the customers who pay
> for the product and related services, being provided by using these tools.
> 

I don't know how the market for programmers is where you live, but
around here, it's very difficult to recruit programmers for work in
languages that are not considered "good for the resume". It's far
easier to find people willing to work in Java, C++ or even C then in
COBOL.

-- 
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A6E942.21806876@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> > > Though I personally don't like it, I expect COBOL to continue a long life.
> >
> > Choice of language should be like choice of religion.
>
> Disagree. Choice of language should be like picking a screwdriver or
> whatever other tool out of a toolbox for a particular task. It doesn't get
> the job done to insist on a hammer for drilling a hole, because you like
> it better.

But then again you could be a brace-and-bit or a More-Power diesel-powered
hammer-drill type. Depends on the kind of hole you want. You could also like a
nice general all purpose Swiss army knife that does more than one thing but maybe
not as well as a electric screw-driver but you can carry it in your pocket. ;)

> I have also said that the Y2K bug is not COBOL's fault (it is often wrongly
> assumed to have caused the Y2K problem).

I thought it had more than a Y2K problem. I thought some versions of COBOL-ers has
a Y1.998K, a Y2.001K problem also.

> The Y2K problem has been caused by the IT managers who ignored the fact that the
> problem existed and did not take proper action when it was still early to do so.

Yup. Absolutely. But it is also down to the programmers and systems analysts and
testers for not discussing the shortcommings of COBOL using short sucinct phases
and/or sayings.

> You seem to assume that anyone is writing software just for fun.

But some people do it for money AND do it for love :-)~

> This is not the case in a commercial context.

Hmmm.

> It is not the COBOL programmers that have to be kept happy with the choice of
> tools, but the customers who pay for the product and related services, being
> provided by using these tools.

But it is the role of the technically adept to convince those people that pays the
money (the customer) that they should use the right tool for the job.

> ... then, I claim the right for that paying customer to say "I don't like
> COBOL, you must not use it". The paying customer is the only authority
> here.

No, that is wrong. The customer must be educated. I am not advocating CL as the
answer but there are better languages out there.

> It is not about religion, it is about meeting customer requirements.

<rant> Yes, it is about meeting customers requirement. More than that this, it is
about exceeding and delighting customers will all aspects of your products and
services. If COBOL can do this it is not the language I thought it was. If COBOL
is the answer then it is a bloody stupid question.</rant>

Cheers,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0308992315320001@ppp043-max03.twics.com>
> > > Choice of language should be like choice of religion.
> >
> > Disagree. Choice of language should be like picking a screwdriver or
> > whatever other tool out of a toolbox for a particular task. It doesn't get
> > the job done to insist on a hammer for drilling a hole, because you like
> > it better.
> 
> But then again you could be a brace-and-bit or a More-Power diesel-powered
> hammer-drill type. Depends on the kind of hole you want. You could also like a
> nice general all purpose Swiss army knife that does more than one thing
but maybe
> not as well as a electric screw-driver but you can carry it in your pocket. ;)

Ok, then let me put it in a different way...

Choice of language should be like choice of an investment.

Some investments pay better interest, while carrying a higher risk. Low
risk investments are often paying lower interests. There are
superperformers and also junk bonds, which sometimes can be turned back
into performers by good managers.

 
> I thought some versions of COBOL-ers has a Y1.998K, a Y2.001K problem also.

Not COBOL has the problem. You could have programmed that very same bug in
any other language, admittedly some languages may have discouraged it.

There is also a September 9, 1999 bug (pretty soon), which comes down to
the fact that COBOL doesn't have a NIL value and filling a field with 9
was considered to be NIL. While a NIL value designed into COBOL could have
prevented the problem, it was bad style to not use a separate flag to
represent validity.

> But it is also down to the programmers and systems analysts and testers for
> not discussing the shortcommings of COBOL.

In the early days it was probably not recognised as a shortcoming. COBOL
was a breakthrough. The first language that you didn't need an MSc to
understand and program. At the time computer literacy was not quite what
it is today.

Later, when it became clear that the software would most likely still be
around by the end of the century, programmers and analysts did say that
there was a problem. It was being discussed for along time as early as the
late eighties.

It was down to ostrich policy in management and later in governments not to act.
I remember, when the Blair government coming to power in the UK made
efforts to coordinate Y2K remedy throughout the EU it got dismissed by
many other governments as being hype, because for them it was a bad time
due to the introduction of the Euro. The German government officially
dismissed the Y2K problem as late as 1998 as "a US/UK initiative to
disturb the introduction of the Euro".

They have been told early enough. Nobody wanted to listen.


> > It is not the COBOL programmers that have to be kept happy
> > but the customers who pay 

> But it is the role of the technically adept to convince those people that pay
> money (the customer) that they should use the right tool for the job.

Exactly! But some people call that "intrusive evangelism".


> The customer must be educated.

This has too strong an autocratic flavour to me. Obviously you can and
should offer advise and assistance to your customers. But if they don't
like what you have to say, then it is their choice. The paying customer
has the last word.

The problem these days is, that customers ask for things and software
companies tell them they cannot have these things, but that they should
buy the software anyway because of the zillion other things in there that
the customer didn't ask for. From this angle I would oppose to educating
the customer.


> about exceeding and delighting customers will all aspects of your products and
> services. If COBOL can do this it is not the language I thought it was.

COBOL did this in the sixties and seventies. That's why it became so
popular. But now it is more and more becoming a legacy. Keyword: Product
life cycle!!!


Today, the computer literacy is such, that companies can use languages
that are conceptual more difficult to understand and I have learned from
readers of this NG that there is quite a number of companies who have
written applications related to billing in languages like LISP, which is
promising and it is encouraging for me, because I am currently gathering
information about what tools we could use to better serve our customers,
of which LISP is a strong candidate. Though we haven't been using COBOL we
have been affected as we provide consultants to help customers trying to
fix problems that in their majority have been caused by design flaws,
often related to COBOL.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Ian Wild
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A6FFA0.74493538@cfmu.eurocontrol.be>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> There is also a September 9, 1999 bug (pretty soon), which comes down to
> the fact that COBOL doesn't have a NIL value and filling a field with 9
> was considered to be NIL.

I've seen this stated several times, but still fail to
see how the problem arises.  Surely any program that
allocates only a single digit for either DAY-OF-MONTH
or MONTH-OF-YEAR, let alone both as this bug requires,
is doomed long before the fateful 9/9/99.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408990227250001@ppp035-max03.twics.com>
> I've seen this stated several times, but still fail to
> see how the problem arises.  Surely any program that
> allocates only a single digit for either DAY-OF-MONTH
> or MONTH-OF-YEAR, let alone both as this bug requires,
> is doomed long before the fateful 9/9/99.

This is more down to bad programming style than memory allocation.
At first I didn't believe that there could be a problem, myself, but I
have been shown examples that were worrysome, like packing 09/09/99 such
that it somehow turned out 9999; then testing for "9999" would evaluate
into "undetermined".

Not really beautiful ;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A703B8.C32178CC@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> Choice of language should be like choice of an investment.
>
> Some investments pay better interest, while carrying a higher risk. Low risk
> investments are often paying lower interests. There are superperformers and also
> junk bonds, which sometimes can be turned back into performers by good managers.

This is a fair point but I'm sorry it is a rather dull analogy. I feel much more
passionate about the creative tools that I use daily, rather than the money I make
doing it. But maybe that is why I am so poor.

> ...when the Blair government coming to power in the UK made efforts to coordinate
> Y2K remedy throughout the EU it got dismissed by many other governments as being
> hype, because for them it was a bad time due to the introduction of the Euro. The
> German government officially dismissed the Y2K problem as late as 1998 as "a US/UK
> initiative to disturb the introduction of the Euro".

This is very interesting. I didn't know this, but it figures.

> ...some people call that "intrusive evangelism".

My goodness this is evangelism! But then again if the cap fits ....

> > The customer must be educated.
>
> This has too strong an autocratic flavour to me. Obviously you can and should
> offer advise and assistance to your customers. But if they don't like what you
> have to say, then it is their choice. The paying customer has the last word.

If I was to go to a hospital and required operating on, and if (in the unlucky
event) I was expected to pay for the operation, I would still not expect to tell the
surgeon how to carry out the operation. I would trust her good judgment and hope
that she didn't kill me. Similarly, as a professional I would hope that the customer
would accept advice as the result of consultation at to should be done. But hey ho.

> The problem these days is, that customers ask for things and software companies
> tell them they cannot have these things, but that they should buy the software
> anyway because of the zillion other things in there that the customer didn't ask
> for. From this angle I would oppose to educating the customer.

I would say that this is about honesty, trust and not lying to people. There are
alot of people out there would would like to sell snake oil to sort out all the
software problems in the world. I used to work for a company that sold hardware,
software and vapourware. Mostly vapourware. That is one of the reasons why I left.

The rest of your mail is elided but sounded very positive. Good luck convincing the
powers that be.

Best regards,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408990359440001@ppp022-max03.twics.com>
> I feel much more passionate about the creative tools that I use daily,
> rather than the money I make doing it. But maybe that is why I am so poor.

I feel passionate about my work, too. But, whenever I forget that I am a
professional (doing it for money) and for example choose a contract for
the nice place it is located in or the interesting system they intend to
install ...

... soon, some invisible hand will *wack* me with a *huge* baseball bat
and knock me financially off my feet. I have learned my lesson the hard
way.

But that doesn't mean that you cannot have preferences for the tools you use.

The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy. The guiding
principle of market economy is to preserve resources (i.e. not to waste
them).

For example, one of our clients has implemented an analog cellular network
in Brasil last year. The technology freaks were upset, they wanted
digital. However, they got a surplus of analog phones very inexpensively
and Brasil is short of cash. It saved funds that could be used elsewhere
to develop something else. And, it helped the manufacturer who had a
surplus to recover their cost, thus freeing resources, that could now be
used for something else again.

For business managers this kind of thing is like performance tuning for
computer folks. They are as passionate about it as you when you solve a
development problem, not because of the money but because they did a good
job. And it does make a lot of sense. The economy would go nuts otherwise.


> If I was to go to a hospital and required operating on, and if (in the unlucky
> event) I was expected to pay for the operation, I would still not expect
to tell the
> surgeon how to carry out the operation. I would trust her good judgment
and hope
> that she didn't kill me. Similarly, as a professional I would hope that
the customer
> would accept advice as the result of consultation at to should be done.
But hey ho.

I have a bit of a problem with the analogy. It suggests, that companies
buying software categorically would not know what they wanted. Usually
they know what their business requirements are and that is what I was
referring to.

Even if it looks as if a company doesn't want to go for better technology,
one must ask what the reasoning behind their reluctance is. Often they
have a reason that is perfectly legitimate from a business point of view.

Let me give you an example (and that way eventually return to LISPs survival)

My company has developed what is called a mediation device. It collects
call data records (CDRs) from telephone exchanges and other service
provisioning equipment, evaluates them, logs them (after all its the
equivalent of money), filters them, converts them and forwards them in one
or another form to back-office systems such as billing systems. This
sounds like a trivial task, but it is in fact not. The difficulties are in
the details, like so often.

Biggest challenge is to be able to reconfigure such a device quickly and
accurately, for new services and new equipment or changes in the network.
As the telcom industry is booming, these changes are happening faster and
faster.

Some of these systems have been written 20 years ago when there was not
such a rapid change and supporting a new telephone exchange for example
requires recoding and may take a few months. This was acceptable then, but
it is deadly for any operator these days.

Our mediation hub features a rule-engine. A telephone exchange or a group
of exchanges (for a city or region for example) can be accommodated by
writing a rule-set. This usually takes us anywhere between 2 days to 2
weeks as opposed to 6 weeks to 6 months with systems of most of our
competitors.

You should think that the telecom companies are queueing in to get our product.
Not so. And why ? Simply because they are ignorant ? Far from that!

The rules concept is so flexible, that it is also dangerous. The entire
operation of the device can be compromised if one messes around with the
rules. And if it is that easy to change them the customer would want to
change them by themselves, but who is going to give a guarantee for any
lost revenue, we are talking very big money here. We can't give that
guarantee if they mess with the rules. They don't want the responsibility
in the hands of the IT folks.

Great technical design - complex problems, legally and business wise.


But! There is LISP. Pure LISP programs can be mathematically proven and
the process of doing so can be automated. If we are to rebuild our
rule-engine in LISP (currently it's in Java), with a bit of effort we
could probably have our rules inheriting this fancy feature from LISP. If
the rule-sets can then be automatically verified to be matematically
correct, that will be the vehicle by which it would make it possible to
properly address legal issues.

It would also allow an organisation to quantify responsibility. The
verification of rule-sets will provide the responsible manager with the
means to assume ownership and sign off, so it can be released into
production.

This is one strong argument for LISP to possibly become the implementation
platform for our rule-engine and one of the reasons why I have become
interested in LISP again (I had been using it in a math class at
university years ago and I quite liked it, but I never did anything
serious with it).

I believe this is also an interesting example for LISP advocates, because
the feature to prove LISP programs to be mathematically correct may have
been regarded as something with few applications outside of academic work.
The example shows, that such an "academic" feature may well make a
difference in a business context and elegantly solve a problem you would
otherwise need an army of lawyers to sort out. ;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7qet70.107.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 03:59:44 +0900, Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:
>I believe this is also an interesting example for LISP advocates, because
>the feature to prove LISP programs to be mathematically correct may have
>been regarded as something with few applications outside of academic work.
>The example shows, that such an "academic" feature may well make a
>difference in a business context and elegantly solve a problem you would
>otherwise need an army of lawyers to sort out. ;-)

I'm not refuting you on this, but I'm going to ask you anyway: why is LISP
able to be proven mathematically, and not other programming languages?  I
think us new-comers to this newsgroup (if there are any besides myself)
would like to know.

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Mark Carroll
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ODy*lbG6n@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
In article <·····················@dolphin.openprojects.net>,
Samuel A. Falvo II <······@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
(snip)
>I'm not refuting you on this, but I'm going to ask you anyway: why is LISP
>able to be proven mathematically, and not other programming languages?  I
>think us new-comers to this newsgroup (if there are any besides myself)
>would like to know.

I suppose if you program in a functional style then Lisp may make
things easier - proofs of functional, recursively-written programs
allow you to use substitution, proofs by induction, etc. relatively
painlessly, without having to mainly prove things about how all your
statements with side effects map some class of states to some other
class of states under some invariant. I suppose it might also make
proofs of progress slightly easier for most cases, though I've not
investigated that. And, if you want a fairly well-supported language
that permits quite a functional style, Lisp has to be a contender.

If you write Lisp very 'imperatively', I can't see that you'd have a
big win with it. I look forward to being corrected.

Mind you, unless you know your compiler's bug-free... (-:

-- Mark
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-0408991228480001@pbg3.lavielle.com>
In article <·········@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Mark Carroll <·····@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Mind you, unless you know your compiler's bug-free... (-:

The Verifix project is looking at provable correct
Common Lisp (actually ComLisp) compilers.


http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~wg/verifix-intern.html
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408991809240001@ppp026-max03.twics.com>
> I'm not refuting you on this, but I'm going to ask you anyway: why is LISP
> able to be proven mathematically, and not other programming languages?  I
> think us new-comers to this newsgroup (if there are any besides myself)
> would like to know.

It is not that LISP as a language is the only one that can be
mathematically proven. PL/1 was designed, and Modula-2's standard was
defined especially with mathematical proof in mind. In both cases this has
been achieved by using a notation called Meta IV for the semantics of the
language, developed by IBM in a research lab in Vienna. The methodology is
hence referred to as Vienna Development Method (VDM). It is rather
difficult to grasp for non mathematicians. I am sure there are other
languages who can be proven, too.

However, in the case of PL/1 and M2 you needed a separate language to
define the semantics in order to proof that a compiler is working
according to the specification. This is still an acceptable effort when
defining or standardising a language to proof the correctness of
compilers, but you wouldn't want to do that for every single program you
write, especially not if it is a complex piece of software. It's a
laborious task.

The specialty with LISP appears to be, that you can do without things like
Meta IV and just use LISP for that purpose. As a result you automate the
proofing of any pure LISP program, because it is already written in LISP.
This is why this is only possible with pure LISP (presumably referring to
a program that doesn't have any externally defined functions in other
languages).

I found some interesting reading on the ALU (Assocciation of Lisp Users)
web site on this matter at

         http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu

there were articles from McCarthy (the father of Lisp) on it. It was also
mentioned in his "History of Lisp", which I found very interesting, a link
to that is on ALU as well.

It is described, how, unlike other languages, the syntax was an outcome of
the desire to make it easy to process LISP rather than to make it nice to
read and that this has largely contributed to the ability to automate the
process to prove programs. People who complain about LISP's syntax should
consider this, LISP is a mathematical notation in a way. I myself quite
like LISP syntax, but then again my subject used to be mathematics, I even
liked APL ;-)


Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A7FC59.C5D6F64C@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy.

I must disagree. There is no physical law that say this. In fact if I remember my
thermodynamics there are guiding principles about increasing disorder in systems and
about the disapation of energy.

> The guiding principle of market economy is to preserve resources (i.e. not to
> waste them).

This is a aspect of the market economy that I was unaware. For example: it is in the
interests of a market economy to keep about 10% of the population unemployed so as
to force wages down. Some people might say that was a waste. Could I suggest that
the guiding principle of a market economy is to preserve money. And that is a
statement with which I would agree with.

> For example, one of our clients has implemented an analog cellular network in
> Brasil last year. The technology freaks were upset, they wanted digital. However,
> they got a surplus of analog phones very inexpensively and Brasil is short of
> cash. It saved funds that could be used elsewhere to develop something else. And,
> it helped the manufacturer who had a surplus to recover their cost, thus freeing
> resources, that could now be used for something else again.

I think this is a very pragmatic and worthwhile approach and would congratulate all
the people involved.

> ... The economy would go nuts otherwise.

I was unaware of any rational basis to the economy? Could you enlighten me?

> ...I have a bit of a problem with the analogy.

OK. What about this: If you feel poorly you go to the doctor. You tell the doctor
the symptoms and she makes a diagnosis. If this is serious, say you had an inflamed
appendix, you are then refered to a hospital and a surgeon who will hopefully help
you by performing an operation.

If you had was trapped wind, which can be very painful but doesn't require an
operation, the surgeon wouldn't operate and an alternative treatment is found. This
is outcome even if this reduces the surgeons ability to make money. Hopefully.

> It suggests, that companies buying software categorically would not know what they
> wanted.

Some times they do some times they don't. Again, is it the role of the customer to
tell the supplier what tools to use? Surely you would have a menu with prices for
possible solutions. You know. The cheep and cheerful covers 80% of requirements up
to the QE II requiring the development of a domain specific operating systems and
language.

> Usually they know what their business requirements are and that is what I was
> referring to.

Yes. It is an important that as part of development the analysis work is carried
out. Although in my experience it is a task in itself to get the company to express
these requirements in such a form that they can be used to develop a system :-(

> Let me give you an example (and that way eventually return to LISPs survival)
>
> My company has developed what is called a mediation device. It collects call data
> records (CDRs) from telephone exchanges and other service provisioning equipment,
> evaluates them, logs them (after all its the equivalent of money), filters them,
> converts them and forwards them in one or another form to back-office systems such
> as billing systems. This sounds like a trivial task, but it is in fact not. The
> difficulties are in the details, like so often.

I used to work on sales-order processing systems. These weren't written in lisp but
in something not a million miles away from COBOL called PL/B or the Programming
Language for Business. (It has an ANSI standard. WHY?)

Anyhow, this again sounds like a straightforward task but wasn't. Particularly when
it came to pricing. So I respect the problems you encounter in this task.

> Our mediation hub features a rule-engine. A telephone exchange or a group of
> exchanges (for a city or region for example) can be accommodated by writing a
> rule-set. This usually takes us anywhere between 2 days to 2 weeks as opposed to 6
> weeks to 6 months with systems of most of our competitors.
>
> You should think that the telecom companies are queueing in to get our product.
> Not so. And why? Simply because they are ignorant? Far from that!

Just because you are the best or the cheapest in the world doesn't mean that you
will necessarily suceed. Look at competitors of Microsoft. I think this goes back to
a point I made earlier about the rational basis of the market economy ;-)

> But! There is LISP. Pure LISP programs can be mathematically proven and the
> process of doing so can be automated.

Hmmm. Are you talking about functional programming? is this what you mean by
mathematically proven? Or something else. This sounds interesting.

As an aside: I know there is a Systems Analysis formalism (like SSADM) called Z
which is used in military systems to mathematically prove programs. But I have never
used them.

> If we are to rebuild our rule-engine in LISP (currently it's in Java), with a bit
> of effort we could probably have our rules inheriting this fancy feature from
> LISP. If the rule-sets can then be automatically verified to be matematically
> correct, that will be the vehicle by which it would make it possible to properly
> address legal issues.

Good luck!

> The example shows, that such an "academic" feature may well make a difference in a
> business context and elegantly solve a problem you would otherwise need an army of
> lawyers to sort out. ;-)

Yup. I work for a company that uses a rules based system written in lisp applied to
laying out pages in large yellow and black books.

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408992028090001@ppp030-max03.twics.com>
> > The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy.
> 
> I must disagree. There is no physical law that say this. ...

To cover this properly would certainly be out of scope for a computer
science newsgroup and also, I am not a physicist, however, I'd like to
illustrate this with an example (and you could easily find many more such
examples) ...

Take the light passing through a block of ice, plexi-glass (or some other
dense medium) while travelling through air or gas (or another les density
medium).
The ligh beam is broken upon entering the ice-block and back upon leaving
the ice-block. The angle by which it is broken is exactly that which is
required to travel through the ice-block in the shortest possible time,
thus preserving energy. The angle it is broken when leaving the ice-block
will restore it back to its original course.
 
> > The guiding principle of market economy is to preserve resources 

> This is a aspect of the market economy that I was unaware. For example:
it is in the
> interests of a market economy to keep about 10% of the population
unemployed so as
> to force wages down. Some people might say that was a waste.

It may not be a waste, as it gives incentives and descentives to behave
economically viable and provides a reserve. This is from a viewpoint of
the entirety of the people part of that economy. I admit, that it is hard
to make sense of from a human viewpoint.

However, if the unemployment becomes too high, then *yes*, it becomes a
waste and in a market economy the system will start adjusting itself
*unless* we mess with it, for example by laws that are aimed at keeping
people in work but result in the opposite. The economy must be able to
breathe, it is a dynamic system.
The US economy has in general be able to adjust better in this respect
than economies in Europe heavily regulated by their governments. 

Let me give you another example from nature:

Ants are always organising in groups with a ratio of 6:3:1, where the 6
work heavily, the 3 work less and the 1 almost doesn't do anything at all.
Now, if you take 10 ants out of the 60 busy ones of a group of 100, they
will immediately reorganise and only 6 of them will stay busy.
Accordingly, if you take the 10 lazy ones and isolate them, they will
immediately reorganise and 6 of the previously lazy 10 will become busy.

Science has not yet figured out exactly *how* they determine who is who,
but I think there is an insight into sense and nonsense of keeping
reserves in a society. And Human society appears to be in an evolutionary
process with rapid changes (due to the changes in the environment) which
ants may by large have already completed, adjusting to their environment.




> Could I suggest that the guiding principle of a market economy is to preserve
> money. And that is a statement with which I would agree with.

Absolutely. But money is a general representation of resources. ;-)


> > ... The economy would go nuts otherwise.
> 
> I was unaware of any rational basis to the economy? Could you enlighten me?

The "rational basis" is a system of complex relationships between
entities, just like a computer model of whatever kind.

The difference is that nobody really has designed the economy like a
computer model would have been. The design is a product of the actions
undertaken by those who were and are part of the system in the past and in
the present. 


> If you had was trapped wind, which can be very painful but doesn't require an
> operation, the surgeon wouldn't operate and an alternative treatment is found.
> [alternative to an appendix infection] This
> is outcome even if this reduces the surgeons ability to make money. Hopefully.

But preserving resources. Had an unsuitable treatment been chosen it would
cause damage as it would require further treatment later. There is in fact
many cases not only in medicine where the rules we have set ourselves
encourage waste and you may consider this a bug.

One example of how well human society can perform defining a system of
waste, disabling market forces is the agricultural policy of the European
Union.

Potatoes are being grown in -say- Germany, then carried to -say- Southern
Italy to be washed and peeled then carried back to Germany to be sliced
and roasted into potatoe crisps, many of which will then be carried back
to Italy to be sold. This would be fine, if resources were preserved
nevertheless, as in many similar cases it may actually do. However, the
described case is down to subsidies from the EU and not because it offers
a cost advantage.

The unfortunate thing is, that when you start disabling market forces in
only one particular area that may seem isolated it will have a domino
effect on anything else. This is because the price of a good as a function
of how scarce that good is, thus it has an embedded method to prevent
waste of that good.

Goods that are very scarce must be expensive in order to make it worth
while using them and to incentive the use of a cheaper (and less scarce)
resource in its place. Only a venture with a high economic return should
deserve the use of such scarce resources if there is no cheaper (less
scarce) alternative.

But if governments start subsidising goods, all equations in the whole
system don't represent the true value anymore. Everyone is now working
with errors.

That is the main reason, why people think that market economy doesn't
work. They only see economies where market forces have been heavily
disabled. The Economist news magazine (highly recommendable!) had a very
interesting survey, I believe it was last year, where they published the
figures for government intervention as a percentage of GDP in most OECD
countries. Most European countries had close to or even more than 50% of
GDP directly related to government intervention. The UK scored something
in the 30s and the US was slighly under 30%. The Economist showed, how a
lower figure was related to a healthier economy. The more market there was
the better it worked.

This also explains, why Americans often regard Europe as being "socialist"
even at times when most European governments where in fact ruled by
conservatives.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to draw a picture of everything being
just perfect. Where there is a lot of changes, there is difficulties with
adapting to these changes and our societies and economies are changing at
a high speed.

Who knows, it may be hardship even for the lightbeam to adjust while it is
travelling through the ice-block, yet it has to follow its path.


> Just because you are the best or the cheapest in the world doesn't mean that
> you will necessarily suceed. Look at competitors of Microsoft.

Absolutely.

> > But! There is LISP. Pure LISP programs can be mathematically proven and the
> > process of doing so can be automated.
> 
> Hmmm. Are you talking about functional programming? is this what you mean by
> mathematically proven? Or something else. This sounds interesting.

Actually, I don't necessarily want to prove the correctness of the
software. What I have in mind is to do automatic or at least computer
aided proof of the rule-sets and I am interested to find out whether LISP
could be of assistance as a tool to achieve that.
 
> As an aside: I know there is a Systems Analysis formalism (like SSADM)
> called Z which is used in military systems to mathematically prove programs.
> But I have never used them.

That's very interesting. Would you have any links ? I am just concerned
about how many errant hits I would get if I was doing an internet search
with "Z" as an argument ;-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-0408991444010001@pbg3.lavielle.com>
In article <································@ppp030-max03.twics.com>, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) wrote:

> > > But! There is LISP. Pure LISP programs can be mathematically proven and the
> > > process of doing so can be automated.
> > 
> > Hmmm. Are you talking about functional programming? is this what you mean by
> > mathematically proven? Or something else. This sounds interesting.
> 
> Actually, I don't necessarily want to prove the correctness of the
> software. What I have in mind is to do automatic or at least computer
> aided proof of the rule-sets and I am interested to find out whether LISP
> could be of assistance as a tool to achieve that.
>  
> > As an aside: I know there is a Systems Analysis formalism (like SSADM)
> > called Z which is used in military systems to mathematically prove programs.
> > But I have never used them.
> 
> That's very interesting. Would you have any links ? I am just concerned
> about how many errant hits I would get if I was doing an internet search
> with "Z" as an argument ;-)
> 
> Benjamin

How about Applicative Common Lisp (ACL2)?

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/v2-3/acl2-doc.html
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7g11zr66z.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:28:09 +0900, 
"Benjamin" == Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> writes:

<interesting stuff snipped>

Benjamin> Potatoes are being grown in -say- Germany, then carried to -say-
Benjamin> Southern Italy to be washed and peeled then carried back to Germany
Benjamin> to be sliced and roasted into potatoe crisps, many of which will
Benjamin> then be carried back to Italy to be sold. This would be fine, if
Benjamin> resources were preserved nevertheless, as in many similar cases it
Benjamin> may actually do. However, the described case is down to subsidies
Benjamin> from the EU and not because it offers a cost advantage.

An important other factor is that in actual practice, many 'soft' resources
(largely environmental factors), are usually quietly ignored. The to-ing and
fro-ing of goods across the Alps wastes a lot of energy, the actual cost of
which is not known. It is debatable whether this cost can be meaningfully and
completely expressed in terms of money (in the sense that you could clean up
the pollution with the money obtained by levying some eco-tax on such
transport), but it' there nonetheless. Another factor is that the
infrastructure is stressed more; part of this cost can be expressed in money,
other parts cannot.

Sorry to go off topic ...


                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A857B1.D9472532@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> To cover this properly would certainly be out of scope for a computer science
> newsgroup and also, I am not a physicist, however, I'd like to illustrate this
> with an example (and you could easily find many more such examples) ...

For my sins, I am a physicist. Just not a very good one.

> Take the light passing through a block of ice, plexi-glass (or some other dense
> medium) while travelling through air or gas (or another les density medium). The
> ligh beam is broken upon entering the ice-block and back upon leaving the
> ice-block. The angle by which it is broken is exactly that which is required to
> travel through the ice-block in the shortest possible time,

Nope. The actual formulation is that the light path is an extrema: that is either
the least or longest path. But this is me being a smart arse, so ignore this. You
should also know that this is an approximation and can and does break down in some
interesting ways.

> thus preserving energy. The angle it is broken when leaving the ice-block will
> restore it back to its original course.

If you pass light through ice or plexi-glass the energy of the light is not
preserved.  Both ice and plexi-glass absorb light energy. This is why ice appears
cloudy and why light from plexi-glass appear bluish. So it is not as simple as you
make it sound.

It is not the energy that is important in this case, it is the momentum and
variation in the speed of the light in the medium through which it travels, that
cause it to display refraction. However, I will agree that in closed systems energy
is concerved. It just not necessarily in a form that you would like.

But I agree this is not something we should discuss in this news group. For an more
comprehensive discussion of the interesting properties of light I would recommend:

For a gentle introduction: 'The Feynman Lectures On Physics, Book Two',
Addison-Wesley, R. Feynman et al.; about least action stuff try: 'Classical
Mechanics', Addison-Wesley, H. Goldstein.

For more detailed general discussion try,
'Electrodynamics of Continuous Media', Elsevier Science, E.M. Lifshitz, L.P.
Pitaevskii, L.D. Landau;
'Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and
Diffraction of Light', Cambridge, M. Born and E. Wolf.

And now to unemployment:

> It may not be a waste, as it gives incentives and descentives to behave
> economically viable and provides a reserve. This is from a viewpoint of the
> entirety of the people part of that economy. I admit, that it is hard to make
> sense of from a human viewpoint.

It is hard to make sense of it from a social point of view. The talent and resources
of the people who are unemployed are wasted. This seems to be an argument based on
social exclusion. But maybe I am more concerned about the personal implication of
unemployment rather than the benefit to others. What is the longest time that you
have been unemployed? Did you not think that that was a waste?

> However, if the unemployment becomes too high, then *yes*, it becomes a waste and
> in a market economy the system will start adjusting itself *unless* we mess with
> it, for example by laws that are aimed at keeping people in work but result in the
> opposite. The economy must be able to breathe, it is a dynamic system.

I think this a political statment, is based on personal belief and I would prefer
not to pass comment.

> The US economy has in general be able to adjust better in this respect than
> economies in Europe heavily regulated by their governments.

I again think this is a moot point. I would point out things like the difference
between health care systems in Europe and the states, the access to education, and
such like. All in all, I think I prefer it on this side of the pond. Unless I was
fantastically wealthy. But as I am a humble, poor, Software Engineer, so I'll stop
where I am.

> Let me give you another example from nature:

[ ....elided a discussion of ants....]

> .....And Human society appears to be in an evolutionary process with rapid changes
> (due to the changes in the environment) which ants may by large have already
> completed, adjusting to their environment.

This reminds me of Plato's Republic. This has a discussion of a perfect human
society based on an ant like community, so I must complement your arguments on
having a good historical pedigree. But I am terribly sorry, I am so stupid that I
can see what this has got to do with a free-market economy?

> > Could I suggest that the guiding principle of a market economy is to preserve
> > money. And that is a statement with which I would agree with.
>
> Absolutely. But money is a general representation of resources. ;-)

Yes. Only because in our society we make it so. It doesn't have to be but there is
no reason why it shouldn't (or should be).

AAAAAGGGGGHHHH. Sorry. But thats much better.

> > > ... The economy would go nuts otherwise.
> >
> > I was unaware of any rational basis to the economy? Could you enlighten me?
>
> The "rational basis" is a system of complex relationships between entities, just
> like a computer model of whatever kind.
>
> The difference is that nobody really has designed the economy like a computer
> model would have been. The design is a product of the actions undertaken by those
> who were and are part of the system in the past and in the present.

OK.

> > If you had was trapped wind, which can be very painful but doesn't require an
> > operation, the surgeon wouldn't operate and an alternative treatment is found.
> > [alternative to an appendix infection] This
> > is outcome even if this reduces the surgeons ability to make money. Hopefully.
>
> But preserving resources. Had an unsuitable treatment been chosen it would cause
> damage as it would require further treatment later.

Not if you died. That would save resources ;)

> There is in fact many cases not only in medicine where the rules we have set
> ourselves encourage waste and you may consider this a bug.

I think you agree with me then. But I'm not sure.

> One example of how well human society can perform defining a system of waste,
> disabling market forces is the agricultural policy of the European Union.

You sink so low, sir. There is no way in a million years that I could try and
explain, understand or justify the Common Agricultural Policy. Sorry. I ain't going
there.

> This also explains, why Americans often regard Europe as being "socialist" even at
> times when most European governments where in fact ruled by conservatives.

I just think we like our people more :)

[ ...elided a long explanation of the free market... ]

> Don't get me wrong, I do not want to draw a picture of everything being just
> perfect. Where there is a lot of changes, there is difficulties with adapting to
> these changes and our societies and economies are changing at a high speed.

And alot of people who have not hope and no future. The price of progress. But then
again I'm just a bleeding heart pinko liberal ;)

> Who knows, it may be hardship even for the lightbeam to adjust while it is
> travelling through the ice-block, yet it has to follow its path.

I disagree. There is no inevitable physical reason for the free market. It just is.
I see no major problem with it. It is just the worst system, apart from all the
others. People have been organising themselves in all sorts of odd ways through out
the centries. There were good reasons for those systems just as there are good
reasons for the free market. I just cannot see the inevitable physically or natural
reasons. But then again I am sometime a bit slow on the uptake.

The problem with a system only based on money is that people then know the cost but
not the value of things. (apologies to Oscar Wilde).

> Actually, I don't necessarily want to prove the correctness of the software. What
> I have in mind is to do automatic or at least computer aided proof of the
> rule-sets and I am interested to find out whether LISP could be of assistance as a
> tool to achieve that.

I think people far more qualified than me have answered this question.

> That's very interesting. Would you have any links ?

No to hand. I will do my best look this up tonight. I haven't got time to dig
through my large collection of rubbish in my (s)hed. Please be patient. Soz.

> I am just concerned about how many errant hits I would get if I was doing an
> internet search with "Z" as an argument ;-)

Oh yes. Joy. Best Regards,

:-) will
From: CsO
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7oacco$s12$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
William Deakin wrote...
>Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
>And now to unemployment:
>> It may not be a waste, as it gives incentives and descentives to behave
>> economically viable and provides a reserve. This is from a viewpoint of
the
>> entirety of the people part of that economy. I admit, that it is hard to
make
>> sense of from a human viewpoint.
>It is hard to make sense of it from a social point of view. The talent and
resources
>of the people who are unemployed are wasted. This seems to be an argument
based on
>social exclusion. But maybe I am more concerned about the personal
implication of
>unemployment rather than the benefit to others. What is the longest time
that you
>have been unemployed? Did you not think that that was a waste?

Unemployed since January here, currently in post Dilbertian hell.
16 year career, 12 in C, have been payed to write C++, assembler,
Pascal, Basic, Fortran, have turned hand to Java, Lisp, SML, Prolog,
Cobol, Forth etc. on Win32, various Unices, VMS, RT-11, SBCs etc.,
BSc(Hons), MSc. The world is an extremely scary place for those
on low income. You really find out who your friends are.

"Giz a job, I could do that...": Yosser Hughes

Will write software for food & shelter.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0508990721430001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
In article <············@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "CsO" <···@earthling.net> wrote:

> Unemployed since January here, currently in post Dilbertian hell.
> 16 year career, 12 in C, have been payed to write C++, assembler,
> Pascal, Basic, Fortran, have turned hand to Java, Lisp, SML, Prolog,
> Cobol, Forth etc. on Win32, various Unices, VMS, RT-11, SBCs etc.,
> BSc(Hons), MSc. The world is an extremely scary place for those
> on low income. You really find out who your friends are.
> 
> "Giz a job, I could do that...": Yosser Hughes
> 
> Will write software for food & shelter.

Go to http://www.jobserve.com

- register your CV on the database (free distribution to 2000 agencies)

- subscribe to the job mailing (free daily)

- define your job filters

there is currently 90000 contractors and jobseekers who are subscribed and
have access to about daily 7000 live IT jobs. I get about 150 jobs every
day. Jobserve's filtering has some limitations though. If you happen to
have a Mac and Eudora you can get my Jobserve applet (16$ shareware) which
filters your jobs and another one to automatically responds to the poster.

Jobserve has contract, permanent and telework vacancies listed worldwide.

As you seem to be in the UK you should not have any difficulties to find
something interesting as JobServe is UK based and the majority of
vacancies are in the UK or through UK agencies.

you may contact me directly by email if you want further hints

It may be necessary to rewrite your CV, as I could imagine, that a hiring
manager may have difficulties if he sees "too many" skills there. I often
have that problem myself, but I have become quite good in CV writing ;-)

Good Luck 

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0508990534390001@ppp034-max03.twics.com>
> If you pass light through ice or plexi-glass the energy of the light is not
> preserved.  Both ice and plexi-glass absorb light energy.

It was my understanding, that if the lightbeam would just continue (w/o
refraction) more of its energy would get absorbed, thus it preserves
energy that otherwise whould have got absorbed by doing what it does.


> What is the longest time that you have been unemployed? Did you not think
> that that was a waste?

As I am a self-employed consultant, I am unemployed for some time all the
time between assignments. I never find that a waste. It gives me room for
... let's call it "re-alignment".

Anyway, if I left it at that I would be evading you question too easily. :-)

I must have read a quote of someone important somewhere that went a bit
like this "If you are not a socialist in your twenties you have no heart,
and if you are not a conservative in your thirties (or was it fourties?)
you have no brain." It might have been Winston Churchill, who said that,
but I am not sure and I do not intend to be offending by quoting this...

Anyway, fact is, that in my twenties, I was too much of a revoluzzer and
nobody would want to employ me for that. I then thought it was a waste.
Today I think it was the best thing that could have happened to me, as it
helped me in my development.

A lot of odd things happened to me in my life and believe me, I had a lot
of hardship, but it made me grow and I am thankful for it. I am not afraid
of that invisible hand to *whack* me again (the one I mentioned before) as
I am eager to learn the next lesson of life.

I was probably just like you or even more of a "bleeding heart pinko
liberal". I even dismissed Economics entirely, "because it was not natural
science, but a bunch of stupid man made rules". But the more I learn about
Economics, the more I see the sense of it and that it is most of the time
us messing with things rather than the principles of market economy being
wrong.


> > The US economy has in general be able to adjust better in this respect than
> > economies in Europe heavily regulated by their governments.
> 
> I again think this is a moot point. I would point out things like the
> difference between health care systems in Europe and the states, the
> access to education, and such like.

Of course there is pros and cons to everything. It's not black and white.
The challenge is to constantly struggle to find a reasonable balance.

> All in all, I think I prefer it on this side of the pond. Unless I was
> fantastically wealthy. But as I am a humble, poor, Software Engineer,
> so I'll stop where I am.

Though I am not an advocate of the US, neither am I American, but I
believe, that the US provides a better platform for a "humble, poor SE" to
get wealthy if they wanted to go for it (and that is important), than most
economies in Europe.


> This reminds me of Plato's Republic. This has a discussion of a perfect human
> society based on an ant like community, so I must complement your arguments on
> having a good historical pedigree. But I am terribly sorry, I am so stupid
> that I can [not?] see what this has got to do with a free-market economy?

Hmm, I am more a friend of Edvardo de Bono, who dismisses Plato as one of
the "gang of three" to have caused western society a "thinking problem".
Anyway, I do not believe in a "perfect society". A society may be well
adjusted to its environment, ... but perfect ?

The point I made when referring to the ants' behaviour has to do with
sense or nonsense of reserves.

> > Absolutely. But money is a general representation of resources. ;-)
> 
> Yes. Only because in our society we make it so. It doesn't have to be but
> there is no reason why it shouldn't (or should be).

Absolutely. But to have an embedded mechanism to prevent waste of
resources is a very powerful concept for an economy. It works much better,
then trying to figure out in any single case whether or not someone has a
good cause and is eligible to use a resource.

You could draw parallels to computing systems, like garbage collection,
functional programming or object orientation. It doesn't have to be this
or that way, but it nevertheless is powerful enough to give it an
advantage over other models.


> > But preserving resources. Had an unsuitable treatment been chosen it 
> > wouldcause damage as it would require further treatment later.
 
> Not if you died. That would save resources ;)

Not necessarily. Economists have researched the impact of deaths due to
accidents, unhealthy behaviour or bad health care systems to great detail.
In general such deaths have been identified as a waste of resources. This
problem arises when governments are put in the very delicate situation to
measure how much money it is worth to safe life, like in an epidemic etc.

Example, BSE in the UK. How much would it cost to contain a possible
future epidemic that could become a threat to society versus the cost of
destroying the resources contained in the beef stock of the country before
evidence of an epidemic was strong enough. In this case it turned out to
have been a waste of resources to wait so long. Market forces were
disabled when the government decided to cover up.


> I think you agree with me then. But I'm not sure.

Is it a matter of agreement ? I did not propose to have a perfect model to
explain everything, let alone to manage it. However, I believe it is quite
helpful to have models to assess sense or nonsense of particular rules or
actions in a system in its entirety.


> There is no way in a million years that I could try and explain, understand
> or justify the Common Agricultural Policy. Sorry. I ain't > going there.

Because it is like a zillion times patched COBOL program where the source
code got lost and nobody seems to remember anymore what it was written for
in the first place. Also there is many more people sitting on the steering
committe than there is software engineers ;-)


> There is no inevitable physical reason for the free market.

You are right, there isn't. But nature (and physics) can serve as a role
model on how to not waste resources, which is an important thing for any
economic system. Market economy has an embedded mechanism for that, just
like you do not need someone to sit in front of the ice-block to tell the
lightbeam what rules apply when entering the block. Most of the time
governments try to sit in front of the ice-block and guide the lightbeam
to their own liking, which creates waste, by a) failing to guide as well
as a built in function could do and b) creating a jungle of an
adminsitrative nightmare.


> The problem with a system only based on money is that people then know
the cost but not the value of things. (apologies to Oscar Wilde).

Interesting point. But look at it closer. Wilde confirms, what I said
earlier. If we start subsidising goods, it has a knock on effect on all
other goods' prices. The reason why we can't see the value of things then
is because our prices are blurred. The principle, that something is
expensive in order to prevent waste doesn't show through anymore, which
then has a knock on effect on other values not being recognised, because
the principle to waste only for a good cause could not be established as
something worth while making it our personal philosophy. Yet, we blame the
mechanism not the messing with it.


> And alot of people who have not hope and no future. The price of progress.
> But then again I'm just a bleeding heart pinko liberal ;)

I am confident, if you give the market and it's principles a try for
yourself as a thinking model, you will find that it has room for all the
social ideals you charish and often even provides a better way of
justifying human causes than just to treat it as a matter of belief, as
belief can always be easily dismissed.

It is for example difficult, to reason that something is inhumane in front
of a violent radical. They just don't have the same belief system. But if
you can explain why something doesn't make sense because its a waste of
resources and therefore detrimental to their own goal, at least you might
get them thinking. If they are being challenged in such a way over and
over again, it will have an impact. The repetition of belief statements
may have the opposite effect.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A994A5.D413D857@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> > If you pass light through ice or plexi-glass the energy of the light is not
> > preserved.  Both ice and plexi-glass absorb light energy.
>
> It was my understanding, that if the lightbeam would just continue (w/o
> refraction) more of its energy would get absorbed, thus it preserves energy that
> otherwise whould have got absorbed by doing what it does.

I would be interested if you could dig out a reference to this work. I have never
seen a treatment of refraction using energy minimisation, particularly when looking
at absorbing material. I had a look at Landau and Lifshitz last night and they use a
description based on wave-vectors to describe the refraction and reflection of
light. They then state that the general case for absorbing media is 'involved'. And
I tend to belive Landau. Adding some form of functional minimisation would (I think)
just make this even more involved.

> > What is the longest time that you have been unemployed? Did you not think
> > that that was a waste?
>
> As I am a self-employed consultant, I am unemployed for some time all the time
> between assignments. I never find that a waste. It gives me room for ... let's
> call it "re-alignment".

This is something I have considered and would like to do.

> ... "If you are not a socialist in your twenties you have no heart, and if you are
> not a conservative in your thirties (or was it fourties?) you have no brain." ...

I know this quote. Am yes I am still (just) in my twenties. In fact few years ago I
not sure I would be having this conversation at all.

> Anyway, fact is, that in my twenties, I was too much of a revoluzzer and nobody
> would want to employ me for that.

I was a student for a long time for similar reasons but things change :-)

> ... the more I learn about Economics, the more I see the sense of it and that it
> is most of the time us messing with things rather than the principles of market
> economy being wrong.

I have read a little economics, Marx, Galbraith, Smith. I particularly like J.K.
Galbraith. Not so keen on Adam Smith tho'. Anyhow, I don't think I have ever said
that the market economy was wrong just that it has some problems and if left
completely unfettered can end up hurting alot of people.

> Of course there is pros and cons to everything. It's not black and white. The
> challenge is to constantly struggle to find a reasonable balance.

This is so right. I thank you.

> > All in all, I think I prefer it on this side of the pond. Unless I was
> > fantastically wealthy. But as I am a humble, poor, Software Engineer,
> > so I'll stop where I am.
>
> Though I am not an advocate of the US, neither am I American, but I believe, that
> the US provides a better platform for a "humble, poor SE" to get wealthy if they
> wanted to go for it (and that is important), than most economies in Europe.

I'm not sure that I want on my epitaph 'he had a lot of money'. I would like some
money to do things and look after me and my family, and yes it is a major motivation
but it is not my sole motivation. Also there are other reasons for not moving to the
US like the weathers better, food cheaper, beers rubbish, and they have no sense of
humour, only a sense of humor ;-)

> The point I made when referring to the ants' behaviour has to do with sense or
> nonsense of reserves.

OK. On rereading I think I get the point.

> > The problem with a system only based on money is that people then know the cost
> but not the value of things. (apologies to Oscar Wilde).
>
> Interesting point. But look at it closer. Wilde confirms, what I said earlier. If
> we start subsidising goods, it has a knock on effect on all other goods' prices.
> The reason why we can't see the value of things then is because our prices are
> blurred. The principle, that something is expensive in order to prevent waste
> doesn't show through anymore, which then has a knock on effect on other values not
> being recognised, because the principle to waste only for a good cause could not
> be established as something worth while making it our personal philosophy. Yet, we
> blame the mechanism not the messing with it.

OK. What about this. By making health care to mothers cost money you can end up with
people who are poor having a substandard health care provision. This costs these
babies a good start in life. For example poor health care during delivery can lead
to an extended labour, lack of oxygen and brain- damage. This impacts on mental
agility for the rest of their life. By making this health care subject to free
market forces you can end up with some people having only basic (or no) health care
at all. In many ways I am very happy with this "socialist" tendency amongst of
countries in Europe.

> > And alot of people who have not hope and no future. The price of progress.
> > But then again I'm just a bleeding heart pinko liberal ;)
>
> I am confident, if you give the market and it's principles a try for yourself as a
> thinking model, you will find that it has room for all the social ideals you
> charish and often even provides a better way of
> justifying human causes than just to treat it as a matter of belief, as belief can
> always be easily dismissed.

I agree with the sentiment here. Having a good mental model is alway important for
framing the world. Its just that I like to think that I am flexible enough to try
and have more than one mental model.

> It is for example difficult, to reason that something is inhumane in front of a
> violent radical. They just don't have the same belief system. But if you can
> explain why something doesn't make sense because its a waste of resources and
> therefore detrimental to their own goal, at least you might get them thinking. If
> they are being challenged in such a way over and over again, it will have an
> impact. The repetition of belief statements may have the opposite effect.

This sounds very like 'How to win friends and influence people.' I hope you take
this as a sincere complement as I think this is a great book.

I'm sorry I have had not had an opportunity to dig out the limited stuff that I had
on Z. I had to drive my wife to hospital last night. She's ok but this did tend to
make me a bit forgetful :-(

I also noticed that you had some good looking references from somebody else. Having
had a look, these are better than anything that I can lay my hands on. So if you
don't mind I will leave this'.

Best regards,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908990230580001@ppp038-max03.twics.com>
In article <·················@pindar.com>, ········@pindar.com wrote:

> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > > If you pass light through ice or plexi-glass the energy of the light
is not
> > > preserved.  Both ice and plexi-glass absorb light energy.
> >
> > It was my understanding, that if the lightbeam would just continue (w/o
> > refraction) more of its energy would get absorbed, thus it preserves
energy that
> > otherwise whould have got absorbed by doing what it does.
> 
> I would be interested if you could dig out a reference to this work. I
have never
> seen a treatment of refraction using energy minimisation, particularly
when looking
> at absorbing material.

It's been quite a while that I have been to university. I wouldn't be able
to quote anything in particular. Besides physics was not my major.

Nevertheless, it is quite obvious, that if the lightbeam would go any
other way, the dense medium would absorb more of its energy. Thus the
refraction preserves or saves energy. Whether this can be construed as the
reason for the phenomenon is beyond my field of expertise. I merely quoted
as an example of a system with an embedded method that prevents waste,
just like the prices in a market economy.


> Also there are other reasons for not moving to the US like the weathers
better,

depends on where you go (ie. California/Florida)

> food cheaper,

ditto

> beers rubbish

that's true, but then again outside of Ireland all beer is rubish
well, with the exception of Belgium of course.


> making this health care subject to free market forces you can end up with some
> people having only basic (or no) health care at all. In many ways I am
very happy
> with this "socialist" tendency amongst of countries in Europe.

Not necessarily. Economists have identified poor health care as a waste of
resources
and detrimental to the weel being of an economy. There is a variety of
free market
models how to better address this than European Big Brother Government
style does.

It is also interesting to see, what effect high taxes had on wealthy
people contributing
to society. It was quite common in the last century, for industrialists to
dedicate a
hospital, a university or other great things, because they acknowledged
the benefit for
the economy.

These days, in order to accommodate government that wants it all, tax
burden has increased to levels, where nobody is tempted anymore to make a
dedication and people have developed a dangerous entitlement attitude "I
paid so much - now I want something out of it".


> This sounds very like 'How to win friends and influence people.' I hope
you take
> this as a sincere complement as I think this is a great book.

Thank you, though I have to confess, I didn't even know about the book ;-)


> I also noticed that you had some good looking references [on Z] from
somebody else.

Yes, thanks to Rainer Joswig. This was a valuable reference.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37AEAB8C.F2C64C67@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> Nevertheless, it is quite obvious, that if the lightbeam would go any other way,
> the dense medium would absorb more of its energy. Thus the
> refraction preserves or saves energy. Whether this can be construed as the reason
> for the phenomenon is beyond my field of expertise.

This is something that I am interested in (unfortunately for my wife and friends). I
certainly accept the reasoning, as far as it goes. But it is something that I  (for
my own neurotic reasons) would like to see a proof of. I did not mean to be rude
tho'

> I merely quoted as an example of a system with an embedded method that prevents
> waste, just like the prices in a market economy.

OK.

> > Also there are other reasons for not moving to the US like the weathers better,
>
> depends on where you go (ie. California/Florida)
>
> > food cheaper,
>
> ditto
>
> > beers rubbish
>
> that's true, but then again outside of Ireland all beer is rubish well, with the
> exception of Belgium of course.

Now this is a contriversial point of view. If you like flat warm bitter fluid (which
I do) then North Yorkshire is a good place to live. You have Theakstons, Black Sheep
and Samuel Smith's all within easy staggering distance. But I agree with Ireland and
Belgium also being good places too. But it depends whether you fancy a pint of
stout, larger or bitter...burble..burble...

> ...Economists have identified poor health care as a waste of resources and
> detrimental to the weel being of an economy. There is a variety of free market
> models how to better address this than European Big Brother Government style does.

OK. But where do they apply. I would contend that for the poor and marginalised in
society the free market fails in places such for example in Kenya or the States.

> It is also interesting to see, what effect high taxes had on wealthy people
> contributing to society...

I see health care as a basic human-right (e.g. I read 'life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness' being tied up with health (life) and not something that is to be
handed down through the benificence of the wealthy. In C19th there was no state
health care. This meant that the rich who had a shred of concience had to do
something to aleiviate the excessive suffering of those less well off. However, this
was handed out on the basis of the deserving poor and not as a right. I think the
wealthy should do more (maybe tax breaks would help) but would not like to see a
return to the bad old days.

> > This sounds very like 'How to win friends and influence people.' ...
> Thank you, though I have to confess, I didn't even know about the book ;-)

The book is 'How to win friends and influence people' by Dale Carnegie et al, Pocket
Books. An interesting read, if nothing else.

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1008990255300001@ppp009-max03.twics.com>
> > > beers rubbish [in the US]
> >
> > that's true, but then again outside of Ireland all beer is rubish well,
> > with the exception of Belgium of course.
> 
> Now this is a contriversial point of view.

Indeed, very much so! It's a matter of taste :-)

[description about North Yorkshire beers elided ...]

> But I agree with Ireland and Belgium also being good places too.
> But it depends whether you fancy a pint of stout, larger [lager ?]
> or bitter...burble..burble...

What do you want a lager for if you can have a Caffreys ? ;-)

and also Chimay in three different colors, you got to have it draft in Belgium!


> OK. But where do they apply. I would contend that for the poor and
> marginalised in society the free market fails in places such for example
> in Kenya or the States.

A place as corrupt as Kenya doesn't have a iota of market forces left alive.
Government messes with everything to their own favour.

Heavy government regulation, subsidies, entitlement systems, you name it.
They all have done almost as good a job in disabling the market in
advanced industrialised countries.

Don't blame the market, blame the messing with it.


> I see health care as a basic human-right (e.g. I read 'life, liberty and
the pursuit
> of happiness' being tied up with health (life) and not something that is to be
> handed down through the benificence of the wealthy.

OK, fair enough. In this case big brother government of Europe is doing a
very good job working towards eliminating these human rights as the
tremendous waste spiral they have embarked on will ultimately lead to
those rights being impossible to finance.

It's like Lisp garbage collection. Every programmer has a right to benefit
from garbage collection and garbage collection is a good thing. However,
if vendors were to blow it up such, that nothing was going on anymore
because you are waiting all the time for the garbage collector, what's it
worth then ?

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Bernd Paysan
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7opc7h$bua$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <································@ppp038-max03.twics.com>,
  ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) wrote:
> Not necessarily. Economists have identified poor health care as a
> waste of resources and detrimental to the weel being of an economy.

Argh, where has us this thread from hell taken to. Economists have
written more rubbish than anyone else (theologists left aside ;-).
Economy is a theory where most of the theorists forget that the most
important unknown equation is human behaviour, *and* they forget that
economy just has a purpose, that it is a tool to make a society work.
This should be a science of men, needs, goods, and exchange of goods
between men (driven by needs), but it turns out to be a "science" of
money, money, and more money. Money is completely irrelevant in the
large picture, it just worked out as a reasonable mean to keep a large,
anonymous exchange-based economy working.

Since the only cure to poverty is education, it makes sense to keep poor
people pain-free and norish them enough not to have hunger, because with
pain and hunger, you can't learn. But can you expect economists of a
country with such a degenerated school system as the US to come up with
such a theory? The ROI of a school system has turnover times of 30
years, how does it fit in quarterly reports?

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1108990224510001@ppp031-max03.twics.com>
> [...] economy just has a purpose, that it is a tool to make a society work.
> This should be a science of men, needs, goods, and exchange of goods [...]

The Chinese compound for "Economy" (ca 2500 years old) :

Management (of the) goods (to the) well being (of) all (people)

This has been adopted by most of Asia, notably Japan and the "Tigers"


Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: David Thornley
Subject: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <kUls3.2789$Qn4.299451@ptah.visi.com>
In article <································@ppp038-max03.twics.com>,
Benjamin Kowarsch <···············@xntv.pbz> wrote:
>In article <·················@pindar.com>, ········@pindar.com wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
>> 
>> making this health care subject to free market forces you can end up with some
>> people having only basic (or no) health care at all. In many ways I am
>very happy
>> with this "socialist" tendency amongst of countries in Europe.
>
>Not necessarily. Economists have identified poor health care as a waste of
>resources
>and detrimental to the weel being of an economy. There is a variety of
>free market
>models how to better address this than European Big Brother Government
>style does.
>
Certainly poor health care is detrimental to the economy as a whole, but
one person's poor health care is hardly detrimental at all to anybody
besides that person's friends and family.

It's one of those "commons" things.  It is worthwhile for everybody if
everybody has reasonable health care.  It is not directly worthwhile for
individuals or corporations to pay for reasonable health care for people
in general.  This seems to me to make it a proper area of government
intervention.

To put this another way, who should take responsibility for seeing that
I have access to decent health care?  I certainly have the incentive, but
if I wind up in poor health I probably don't have the money to spend on
good health care.  My employer could, but really my employer's best
financial interest in that case would be to let me go and replace me
with somebody healthier (if not necessarily as good).  If every
individual had some person or corporation with the resources and
incentive to get him or her reasonable health care, then the free
market would take care of it.

It is quite possible that there are ways of addressing this in a
market-based way, but I don't see what they are, and the EU system
of having the government provide medical care at least provides
a reasonable level of care to everybody.

>It is also interesting to see, what effect high taxes had on wealthy
>people contributing
>to society. It was quite common in the last century, for industrialists to
>dedicate a
>hospital, a university or other great things, because they acknowledged
>the benefit for
>the economy.
>
You know, there's a lot of dubious assumptions in that paragraph.  Has
philanthropy in fact declined, or is it a matter of fewer super-rich
people who can afford to build a university?  Did the industrialists
do this in order to benefit the economy?  Why would high taxes inhibit
this, when said high taxes reduce the real cost to an individual of
philanthropy?

In any case, in the days when industrialists/robber barons endowed
hospitals and universities, there were an incredible number of
people who got bad medical care and were very poorly educated.
Nowadays, by means of government intervention, more people have
access to medical care and pretty much everybody can get some sort
of education.
--
David H. Thornley                        | If you want my opinion, ask.
·····@thornley.net                       | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991509300001@ppp040-max03.twics.com>
> It is quite possible that there are ways of addressing this in a
> market-based way, but I don't see what they are, and the EU system
> of having the government provide medical care at least provides
> a reasonable level of care to everybody.

Well, Europe has all the answers to all the questions, haven't they ?
Yet, they lament diminishing industries that once fed a large number of
Europeans and due to the ever increasing cost of the European welfare
system have moved elsewhere. Instead of trying to become more competitive
the usual European answer is to become more protective, increasing cost
further. I can't see how this can leave any resident of Europe in such an
optimistic mood. They may speculate that Europe will force their system on
others and that way make them less competitive, too, but I personally
don't think that this is a good strategy. At some point Europe will have
to leave their ivory tower.

But I can understand that Europe has transitional difficulties. After all,
when was the last time that they had to accept that there is lessons to be
learned from outside of their own culture ? Must have been about a 1000
years...

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B28FF3.AAC237BA@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> > It is quite possible that there are ways of addressing this in a
> > market-based way, but I don't see what they are, and the EU system
> > of having the government provide medical care at least provides
> > a reasonable level of care to everybody.
>
> Well, Europe has all the answers to all the questions, haven't they ?

No, they don't. Just some of the answers.

This was your reply to David Thornley. From the web-site in his signature, it
appears that Mr Thornley has spent much of his life in Minnesota. (My
appologies if this is a misrepresentation). Also, from Mr Thornley remarks he
seems some what disatisfied some aspects of the health care system where he
lives.

Anyway, could I ask, where is this nivarna of free market health care? For
surely that is where I would like to live.

> Yet, they lament diminishing industries that once fed a large number of
> Europeans and due to the ever increasing cost of the European welfare system
> have moved elsewhere. Instead of trying to become more competitive the usual
> European answer is to become more protective, increasing cost further.

I will not pretend there are not problems with the economies in Europe. But I
think all this doom and gloom is a overstated. For example: I am unaware of
mass starvation in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Derbyshire,
Hampshire, Mid-Glamorgan or Powys. There are all places with which I have
communcations from reliable sources within the last few days.

I agree that gross protectionism is wrong. But I again must ask you what
evidence you have for gross anticompetitive practice in Europe? as opposed to
anticompetitive practice in the States or Japan.

> I can't see how this can leave any resident of Europe in such an optimistic
> mood.

As above, I believe Mr Thornley to not be currently resident in Europe. As for
myself, a current European resident, I find that eating a lot of lotus helps
;-)

> They may speculate that Europe will force their system on others and that
> way make them less competitive, too, but I personally don't think that this
> is a good strategy. At some point Europe will have to leave their ivory
> tower.

Yup. If that is where we are.

> But I can understand that Europe has transitional difficulties. After
> all,when was the last time that they had to accept that there is lessons to
> be learned from outside of their own culture ? Must have been about a 1000
> years...

This is obviously errant nonsense. So I will take it with the good humour that
it was obvously intended ;-)

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408991655250001@ppp046-max03.twics.com>
> I will not pretend there are not problems with the economies in Europe. But I
> think all this doom and gloom is a overstated. For example: I am unaware of
> mass starvation in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Derbyshire,
> Hampshire, Mid-Glamorgan or Powys. There are all places with which I have
> communcations from reliable sources within the last few days.

Sure, but the UK is one of the regions in the EU that resists the EU
buerocracy, especially in those areas where the economy could suffer from
a free market viewpoint. You may remember that I quoted The Economist in
an earlier posting, after which the UK had a considerably higher "free
market score" (with only 30 something percernt of GDP as a direct result
of government intervention) compared to other EU countries (where the
ratio was close to 50% and well over).

Economic figures in "big government - mighty state" countries like France
or Germany don't look anywhere close to those achieved by UK policy, which
is generally more market oriented.

Also, the British are much less lamenting and have less of an entitlement
attitude. They tend to take it with humour when things go bad as if they
wanted to say "Ahhh, look how silly we have been". This is far more of a
positive attitude towards taking responsibility and get on with life as
opposed to the notion in many EU countries to ask the government to take
responsibility and get involved in yet another task, increasing the cost
and lowering the effectiveness of the bureaucracy further.
   
> I agree that gross protectionism is wrong. But I again must ask you what
> evidence you have for gross anticompetitive practice in Europe?

With "becoming protective" in this context I had in mind the notion to
protect industries and policies rather than exposing them. If an industry
is not competitive anymore don't ease the pressure on them artificially
for it will only make the situation worse. If they are exposed, they will
have to fight and will become stronger in the process. If they are bound
to die, they will die sooner or later, in which case it is better for them
to die sooner where it is less costly than after years of pouring
subsidies into dying industries.

I'd like to illustrate this with an example. Honda and Toyota became
successful because they were being exposed to market forces. In the 60s
the MITI (Japanese Department of Trade and Indsutry) decided there was not
enough room for so many car manufacturers in the Japanese "market" (post
war scarce-resource management) and told Honda and Toyota to commit
suicide. At the time those manufacturers didn't feel they could find
another field of production and they opposed. The outcome was a deal that
they would accept a limitation of their quota on the domestic "market" and
focus on export. They had to fight for survival. It was their bare
existence that was at stake. Exposed to market forces, unlike their
domestic "competitors" they became so competitive that they later
dominated the Japanese market when it was deregulated. Once the weaklings
to be abandoned they became the flagship companies and their very
existence then forced the entire Japanese car industry to become highly
competitive.

The interesting thing is, that this was not at all planned by the MITI,
even though in the West it is often assumed that there is a Japanese
conspiracy to take over the world. It was not expected that the companies
would survive.

Also interesting is, that this tremendous market success experience did
not have any effect on the policies in other industry sectors outside of
MITIs resort. The Japanese banking industry for example was one of the
most heavily protected in the world, which eventually led to one of the
most spectacular collapses. 

As a result I would say we need to assert that an economy is not
homogenously market or less market or no market throughout all industries
but there is sectors where market forces are strong and there is sectors
where this is not the case. Economic performance tends to improve the more
market there is.


[Europe having difficulties accepting lessons from outside their own culture]

> This is obviously errant nonsense. So I will take it with the good humour that
> it was obvously intended ;-)

Of course I wrote this with a bit of intended sarcasm. But the intention
clearly is to provoke ourselves (I am European myself) to look into the
mirror and constantly ask "Is our model really such a bloody good idea ?
May it not be someone else has done a better job ?" This refers especially
to the judgement of a widely accepted matter applying foreign paradigms
and see if the judgement then can be upheld, possibly forcing ourselves to
change paradigms.

With an open minded spirit, which I sensed you have, I am confident you
will not dispute that European thinking is quite reluctant to accept a
lesson derived from the application of a foreign paradigm. We have many
"holy cows" and we don't like to think of them that way. We try to
convince ourselves that we are always rational. Heavy welfare systems and
the believe in the almighty state are examples of "holy cows".

Westerners who have lived for a long time in non-Western cultures usually
come to identify the "holy cow" syndrom as they get exposed to different
paradigms.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B7DC45.D55419CE@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> [Europe having difficulties accepting lessons from outside their own culture]
>
> > This is obviously errant nonsense. So I will take it with the good humour that
> it was obvously > intended ;-)
>
> Of course I wrote this with a bit of intended sarcasm. But the intention clearly
> is to provoke ourselves (I am European myself) to look into the mirror and
> constantly ask "Is our model really such a bloody good idea ? May it not be
> someone else has done a better job ?" This refers especially to the judgement of a
> widely accepted matter applying foreign paradigms and see if the judgement then
> can be upheld, possibly forcing ourselves to change paradigms.
>
> With an open minded spirit, which I sensed you have...

you smooth talking devil :-)

> ...I am confident you will not dispute that European thinking is quite reluctant
> to accept a lesson derived from the application of a foreign paradigm.

Yup. But I have yet to meet anybody that likes to think that what they are doing in
wrong.

> We have many "holy cows" and we don't like to think of them that way. We try to
> convince ourselves that we are always rational. Heavy welfare systems and the
> believe in the almighty state are examples of "holy cows".

I agree that these are things that need to be constantly examined and thought about.
But I am not currently convinced that these need to be radically changed. 'Man is a
rationalising animal, not a rational one.'

> Westerners who have lived for a long time in non-Western cultures usually come to
> identify the "holy cow" syndrom as they get exposed to different paradigms.

Every culture has its "holy cows." Having a holy-cow is one of the things that makes
us like we are.

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1908991334480001@ppp031-max03.twics.com>
> > ...I am confident you will not dispute that European thinking is quite
reluctant
> > to accept a lesson derived from the application of a foreign paradigm.
> 
> Yup. But I have yet to meet anybody that likes to think that what they
are doing in
> wrong.

In principle that is true, but the spectrum is wide and I would see the
Western culture along with Islam culture pretty close to the end where
things cannot be allowed to turn out quite so different from existing
beliefs.

The Far Eastern culture is much more likely to soak in new ideas even if
they are completely out of sync with their belief system. After all, the
Japanese are often characterised as copy cats. It speaks for itself, that
in Western society "copy cat" has somewhat of a negative touch, whereas in
Japan it is the central idea of education to copy your master to
perfection before you can start to develop your own style out of it.

And there is even some interesting examples, where important ideas,
developed in the West could not gain support there because they went
against the belief system but once discovered by the Japanese immediately
caught on and found applications leaving the West puzzled.

Most prominent example of that is Fuzzy Technology.


I am sympathising with Edvardo de Bono (an authority in Thinking), who
says, that thinking in the Western culture is dominated by what he calls
"the gang of three" [ancient Greek philosopers] such that it becomes more
and more of a disadvantage.

One of these thinking patterns is the "box thinking" (call it static
typing if you want). De Bono says, that this was effective as long as
things were not getting too complex, today however a thinking is required
by which things are seen as members of many boxes, depending on the ever
changing context.

Another pattern is our obsession to criticise, led by the idea that if you
eliminate the negative bits and pieces again and again (call it bug
fixing) you would inherently end up with an optimum. Again, in a rapidly
changing and complex environment he claims that this cannot be upheld and
that things must be designed in their entirety, rather than evolve by bug
fixing.

Interestingly, De Bono's ideas are very much in line in generic terms with
ideas I find in articles written by members of the AI community, inclusive
of Lispers, as prominent as McCarthy. The viewpoint, that design needs to
be done-the-right-way and technology and science have to break away from
the bug-fixing approach seems more common in the AI community than
anywhere else.

If you have a look at De Bono's thesis, you will find that many of his
assertions will have a direct link with problems in the world of software
and computer science. Similar in other areas such as economics. And in
this regard I would not agree with you that our belief system does only
require minor adjustments. I'd rather agree with De Bono, that it needs a
major overhaul.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Steve Gonedes
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <m27lmrj1f8.fsf@KludgeUnix.com>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

< If you have a look at De Bono's thesis, you will find that many of his
< assertions will have a direct link with problems in the world of software
< and computer science. Similar in other areas such as economics. And in
< this regard I would not agree with you that our belief system does only
< require minor adjustments. I'd rather agree with De Bono, that it needs a
< major overhaul.
<
< Benjamin

Such things are easier said then done; does he elucidate how such
changes occur and why people have yet to adopt these principles? I
imagine that the `box thinking' you mentioned interferes in some way.
Interesting stuff.
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37BC2236.93AAE5C2@pindar.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> > > ...I am confident you will not dispute that European thinking is quite
> reluctant to accept a lesson derived from the application of a foreign
> paradigm.
> > I wrote:
> > Yup. But I have yet to meet anybody that likes to think that what they are
> doing is wrong.
>
> In principle that is true, but the spectrum is wide and I would see the
> Western culture along with Islam culture pretty close to the end where
> things cannot be allowed to turn out quite so different from existing
> beliefs.

I think this is about consistency and having a belief system that has a very
set rigid world view. I still hold that people don't like to do what they know
to be wrong. For example when the gangster Dillinger was once asked about why
he killed people, he claimed that the person was going to hurt him. So he
though he killed out of self defence.

> ...It speaks for itself, that in Western society "copy cat" has somewhat of
> a negative touch, whereas in Japan it is the central idea of education to
> copy your master to perfection before you can start to develop your own
> style out of it.

Western society culture puts great store on being original or different.
Albeit that this is encourages so as to get people out to spend, spend, spend.
But look at modern art. The basis of much of what is called modern art is
justified on the basis that the work is used to make the view to think or to
look at the world in a new way. Is this good? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
But I do like the diversity.

> One of these thinking patterns is the "box thinking" (call it static typing
> if you want). De Bono says, that this was effective as long as things were
> not getting too complex, today however a thinking is required by which
> things are seen as members of many boxes, depending on the ever changing
> context.

Sorry. What? I thought this is the basis of problem solving! The way in which
the human mind is set up is to try and 'put things in boxs', looking for an
abstract reprepsentation of the thing, manipulating this mental model and then
using this to sort out what is going on. If you don't do this, how do you
solve problems?

> Another pattern is our obsession to criticise, led by the idea that if you
> eliminate the negative bits and pieces again and again (call it bug fixing)
> you would inherently end up with an optimum. Again, in a rapidly changing
> and complex environment he claims that this cannot be upheld and that things
> must be designed in their entirety, rather than evolve by bug fixing.

I must strongly agree with this. People in the UK are very good at being very
negative.

> ...The viewpoint, that design needs to be done-the-right-way and technology
> and science....

...but to do this you need to box things. Make things abstract, think of new
representions for these things and manipulate what you've got.

> ...I would not agree with you that our belief system does only require minor
> adjustments...

Is this what I said? I thought I was talking about things on a more concrete
basis rather than in the abstract.

> I'd rather agree with De Bono, that it needs a major overhaul.

Ho hum. I think there are things that I would like to see changed: less
obsession with look for new and changing things for changing things; a way of
organising the world to stop nasty power crazed loonies running the place;
more of an emphasis on being nice and polite; more power for ordinary people
to effect change to give everybody a fair chance. But I'm not sure that this
is just about belief systems. But maybe it is.

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: aa
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37C444B5.6B46B4A8@c.com>
fghjdfgjfd
  cvxvxcvxc
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwiu6l1h6r.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
As you can see, there are other things other than CL that tickle me :) Sorry.


···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> > It is quite possible that there are ways of addressing this in a
> > market-based way, but I don't see what they are, and the EU system
> > of having the government provide medical care at least provides
> > a reasonable level of care to everybody.
> 
> Well, Europe has all the answers to all the questions, haven't they ?

No, Europe does not have all the answers.  Simply put, some of the
answers are *better* than the US ones.

> Yet, they lament diminishing industries that once fed a large number of
> Europeans and due to the ever increasing cost of the European welfare
> system have moved elsewhere.

This has happened in the US as well.  And I wouldn't be so sure that
Japanese industries did not do the same by moving production to
Indonesia and so on.

> Instead of trying to become more competitive
> the usual European answer is to become more protective, increasing cost
> further.

You are very far from the truth and from the current reality of EU
policies.  Italy did not become the country with the highest number fo
cell phones because of "protectionists" policies.  Nokia, Ericsson,
Motorola and a bunch of Japanese companies had a ball in the past
years in Italy and Europe.

> I can't see how this can leave any resident of Europe in such an
> optimistic mood. They may speculate that Europe will force their system on
> others and that way make them less competitive, too, but I personally
> don't think that this is a good strategy. At some point Europe will have
> to leave their ivory tower.
> 
> But I can understand that Europe has transitional difficulties. After all,
> when was the last time that they had to accept that there is lessons to be
> learned from outside of their own culture ? Must have been about a 1000
> years...

Aha!  So here it is!  Your problem is not "what is best" (like
European Style Socialized Health Care :) ).  Your problem is the
snotty Europeans (are the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen included? :) )
trying to tell the world that sometime "quality of life" is
better overall in Europe than in the rest of the world.  I apologize
for the tone, but that is not the way *I* see things.

E.g. I believe that living in the Bay Area (actually in SF or in the
North East bay - I hate Silicon Valley :) ) or in NYC may beat living
in Rome. (You don't get to see Piazza Navona every day, but hey! You
can't surf in Ostia, and the subway in NYC has air conditioning.)  But
that is *me*. I have my "union card" and can get decent compensation
and benefits for my work.  The unemployed guy in Oakland CA or in The
Bronx would probaly be better off in Dusseldorf or Naples, not to
speak of the cast off of Japan.

Moreover, since the Republican Crowd ruling Congress does not seem to
want the IRS anymore, I would gladly tell them to pack it up and send
it to Italy. (Of course, you'd have Mr. Berlusconi start a revolution
three weeks after the IRS had started working in Rome - but that is
another story :) ).

Japan is another case.  As a matter of fact. Japan has been *really*
protective of its internal market, and, AFAIK (e.g. reading ROTFLing
"The Economist" or hearing the rantings of a lot of the US
industrialists), it still is.  Some of the "Tigers" (South Korea, yes
*South*) have had "quinquennial" plans for industry development.  Come
on, do you really think you live in the "Market Paradise"?

But let me finish on the Health Care note.  I personally do not care
about "public" or "private" Health Care.  I could easily go to
privatized Health Care insurance..... provided that:

1 - the system will have to guarantee 100% coverage (where "coverage"
    is intended as "common medical procedure" decided by physicians who
    will go to jail if they get a penny from insurance companies) for
    100% of the people.
2 - insurance companies will *not* be allowed to refuse an
    application.
3 - insurance companies will *not* be allowed access to your medical
    record.

A corollary of requirement # 1 is that Insurance companies will have a
*single* product: total health care coverage.

A consequence of this is that insurance companies will have to compete
on the basis of their internal efficiency and not on the tuning of the
offer.

It goes without saying that the first ones to oppose this sort of
private Health Care are the insurance companies themselves.

But then again, Health Care is not a real market, isn't it? :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B29B43.DB2250EB@pindar.com>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:

> ...(are the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen included? :) )...

I should bloody well hope so.

> ...trying to tell the world that sometime "quality of life" is better overall
> in Europe than in the rest of the world.

I believe the quality of life here, where I live is quite good. Definitely better
than in London, say.

> ...You can't surf in Ostia...

You can here. Some of time ;-) But it takes a brave man to surf the North Sea in
January. 16mm neoprene all round.

> But then again, Health Care is not a real market, isn't it? :)

Nope. It ain't.

Cheers,

:-) will
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Way off-topic (was Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408992025060001@ppp020-max03.twics.com>
> > Yet, they lament diminishing industries that once fed a large number of
> > Europeans and due to the ever increasing cost of the European welfare
> > system have moved elsewhere.
> 
> This has happened in the US as well.  And I wouldn't be so sure that
> Japanese industries did not do the same by moving production to
> Indonesia and so on.

No, they did not lament, they acted, as you have just confirmed.
Furthermore, they have tremendously reduced cost at home too.


> You are very far from the truth and from the current reality of EU
> policies.  Italy did not become the country with the highest number fo
> cell phones because of "protectionists" policies.  Nokia, Ericsson,
> Motorola and a bunch of Japanese companies had a ball in the past
> years in Italy and Europe.

Why is it that you pick an example, that is an exception ? Remind you,
that Italy was very reluctant to open the telecom market in the beginning
as were many other EU countries. Belgium even had to be forced into
compliance by order of court and Italy created a huge problem by giving
away a cellular license to the outgoing monopoly for peanuts, while
charging an exorbitant amount never seen before (almost 800 million
dollars) to the private contender. It was the foresight of UK policy under
Thatcher and the resulting success in the UK, that moved Europe to copy
the market approach for some industry sectors, of which telecom is the
most visible one.

Outside of telecom (and utilities, due to upcoming deregulation) the
picture looks quite different.


> Aha!  So here it is!  Your problem is not "what is best" (like
> European Style Socialized Health Care :) ).  Your problem is the
> snotty Europeans ...

Not really. It is only a problem if they practise that outside of their
turf, for example in the Far East when they display a "veni, vidi, vici"
attitude despite lack of insight, which makes it worse for us Westerners
living here, because we have to behave like angels in order to make up for
the damage.

> ... trying to tell the world that sometime "quality of life" is
> better overall in Europe than in the rest of the world.

Sometimes yes! But overall ? I dispute that.

And even if it was, then I'd say you have quite a crowd of
can-never-get-pleased in the European house, which is anyway what I said
earlier.


> I apologize for the tone, but that is not the way *I* see things.

Nothing wrong with your "tone". After all I was being provocative. ;-)


> that is *me*. I have my "union card" and can get decent compensation
> and benefits for my work.  The unemployed guy in Oakland CA or in The
> Bronx would probaly be better off in Dusseldorf or Naples, not to

See, this is what I referred to as "entitlement attitude". I believe this
kind of thing, if it spreads, which it did is very dangerous and the very
reason why large scale entitlement schemes tend to snowball themselves to
death.


> Moreover, since the Republican Crowd ruling Congress does not seem to
> want the IRS anymore, I would gladly tell them to pack it up and send
> it to Italy. (Of course, you'd have Mr. Berlusconi start a revolution
> three weeks after the IRS had started working in Rome - but that is
> another story :) ).

LOL :-)


> Japan is another case.  As a matter of fact. Japan has been *really*
> protective of its internal market, and, AFAIK (e.g. reading ROTFLing

In a way this is a paradoxon. Where there is a market in the Japanese
economy it has been created by exposing that industry sector to
competition and there is no or very little protection, this is the case in
manufacturing industries.

On the other hand where there is protection, as I said in an earlier
posting they did such a tremendous job on it, that there is no market at
all in that industry sector, this is the case in service industries, most
prominent example is the finance industry.

I didn't say that Japan is the market paradise. It is a paradise for
studying the issue of market versus no market, because where there is a
market, there is a very good implementation of it and where there is no
market, there is a very "good" implementation of that model, too, which
gives you the best possible contrast to compare the two models.

Having said that, overall, the Japanese economy has more market than most
other OECD countries, this is because where they have market it works very
well. I quoted a survey from the Economist earlier, after which the market
was measured as a percentage of GDP by a direct government intervention,
most EU countries scored close to 50% and higher, where the UK had a much
better score with 30 something and the US was slightly under 30, whereas
Japan was still below that, I believe New Zealand outperformed even the
Asian Tigers after their tremendous deregulation program started paying
off.

So if you look for a market paradise, your best bet appears to be New Zealand.

The reason why Japan is being perceived as protective even in sectors
where this is not really the case lies in the fact that companies come
here and think they can start selling without doing their homework first.
Thinking in Asia is long term, an environment where "quick buck"
strategies are guaranteed to fail.
This has absolutely nothing to do with government policies, it is simply a
matter of business culture, trust and confidence in business partners.

Many Western companies, who did their homework do extraordinarily well
here. One of the biggest success stories is BMW of Germany, who
established business in Japan in the 60s, they have studied the market and
embarked on a long term strategy, which paid off. BMW is perceived as the
most prestigious brand in Japan, whereas in Germany Mercedes-Benz is
perceived number one.

> But let me finish on the Health Care note.  I personally do not care
> about "public" or "private" Health Care.  I could easily go to
> privatized Health Care insurance..... provided that:
> 
> 1 - the system will have to guarantee 100% coverage (where "coverage"
>     is intended as "common medical procedure" decided by physicians who
>     will go to jail if they get a penny from insurance companies) for
>     100% of the people.
> 2 - insurance companies will *not* be allowed to refuse an
>     application.
> 3 - insurance companies will *not* be allowed access to your medical
>     record.
> 
> A corollary of requirement # 1 is that Insurance companies will have a
> *single* product: total health care coverage.
> 
> A consequence of this is that insurance companies will have to compete
> on the basis of their internal efficiency and not on the tuning of the
> offer.

That sounds like a good market model.

It definitely gives a lot of incentive for not wasting resources, while
maintaining the goal to provide health care to everyone. It would possibly
lead to traditional medicine being used, where applicable, which is
usually cheaper and usually has no side effects, but in most European
health schemes is not covered. In Asia by contrast traditional medicine is
fully accepted and well established.

Also, I wouldn't call this a *single* product only because it provides
total coverage. There is lots of other things that can differentiate a
product, often called value added services. One insurer could provide
better customer service while another one could gain a cost advantage by
automation of client relations, thus being less personal etc etc.

And while I agree, that insurers wouldn't necessarily like the model, this
does not mean that the model is bound to fail. Any players in a heavily
regulated industry are reluctant to deregulation, because they have no
incentive to become more efficient. Their position is safe, they merely
distribute the goods and collect, thus dividing the cake between
themselves.

This reluctance was present in the telecom industry as well and people
said that deregulation would not work in this particular sector because it
was so special. The same thing is happening in the utilities sector, which
is in the process of deregulation. But in the end everybody benefits and
even the monopolists and oligopolists from then eventually realised that
they gain and converted.

The "total coverage" concept has in fact been applied to the deregulated
telecom sector. The selection of licenses in the UK for example, was based
to a large degree on how fast contenders would offer to commit to total
coverage and the contenders for the PCS licenses achieved total coverage
faster than they had promised and faster than anyone had achieved ever
before. Though the total coverage requirement was considered a handicap in
the beginning it is now seen as a means to competitive advantage. See how
perceptions can change. 

The major difference in the health sector is, that it is doubtful whether
it makes sense to create higher volume as lower volume means fewer people
are sick or injured and that is desirable. It is therefore important to
build a system that can thrive on increasing efficiency. But another
benefit of your health care model which demands everyone must offer total
coverage is that, as I already mentioned it will encourage insurers to
offer value added services and this is what gives them the potential to
create a bigger market, without necessitating that more people have to be
sick or injured. Health insurers would have an incentive to transform
themselves into health education services as it would make sense to have
healthy customers. This is how they can gain competitive advantage and it
would also contribute to the general goal of health care, that health is
created and sustained. A healthy population in turn is more productive and
creates better quality. In this regard, what we see today does not really
deserve the term health insurance, but sickness insurance.

A similar contradictious goal scenario can be observed in the utilities
sector. The market needs economy of scale, yet an increase of energy
consumption (as one example) seems questionable as resources are limited
and the use of fossil energy is a hazard for the environment.

A friend of mine is an expert in the field and he runs his own energy
brokerage firm in London. He told me about a scheme in the US, I believe
it was in California, after which heavily polluting power plant operators
have to buy so many credits to be allowed a certain amount of pollution.
"Wait a moment", I thought "Are you telling me the government sells
licenses to pollute ?"

Far from that, they chose a very interesting market model. Operators that
are under certain pollution limits can issue credits and sell them to
operators, that are polluting over limit, who need credits to continue
production. This creates an incentive to upgrade to less polluting
technology as they can get financing for the upgrade from their
competitors through selling credits. The credits are traded on the open
market like bonds and options. When a large polluter is about to upgrade
the credits fall in price because demand is expected to shrink, this
creates incentive to further upgrade to issue credits with higher yields.
From time to time the regulatory authority adjusts the pollution limits
downwards to start a new upgrade spiral.

A brilliant market model and it works.

My friend has approached the EU to get them interested in the scheme, as
he would like to establish a market in London for low-pollution-credits.
However, EU officials have shown little interest so far as they felt it
was like selling a license to pollute. Hopefully, some day they will
understand the scheme and give it a try.

Maybe this sort of thing could serve as an inspiration for smart ideas in
the health sector, too. The status quo - to claim that it can't be helped
the health sector is as it is and can't be improved is certainly most
counterproductive.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Ikram
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86672vio0l.fsf@finch.cs.und.ac.za>
*Benjamin Kowarsch replying to William Deakin...
>> As an aside: I know there is a Systems Analysis formalism (like
>> SSADM) called Z which is used in military systems to
>> mathematically prove programs.  But I have never used them.
>
> That's very interesting. Would you have any links ? I am just
> concerned about how many errant hits I would get if I was
> doing an internet search with "Z" as an argument ;-)

you might try:

<URL:http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/archive/formal-methods.html#Z>

and the comp.specification.z newsgroup

-- 
I. M. Ikram   <URL:http://www.cs.und.ac.za/~ikram/>   ·····@cs.und.ac.za
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37aa67da.1035007@news.mclink.it>
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:28:09 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

> software. What I have in mind is to do automatic or at least computer
> aided proof of the rule-sets and I am interested to find out whether LISP
> could be of assistance as a tool to achieve that.

The ACL theorem prover might be a useful tool:

  http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/acl2-doc.html


Paolo
-- 
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A83496.18EC281B@fisec.com>
William Deakin wrote:
> 
> Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> > The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy.
> 
> I must disagree. There is no physical law that say this. In fact if I remember my
> thermodynamics there are guiding principles about increasing disorder in systems and
> about the disapation of energy.

Entropy.  A pretty useful meme as it can be generalized: you can project
it to people (who waste resources by watching TV or mismanaging others)
or to software tools / applications (e.g., code bloat).

Robert
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A844BE.BD7219CF@pindar.com>
Robert Monfera wrote:

> William Deakin wrote:
> > I must disagree. There is no physical law that say this. In fact if I remember my
> > thermodynamics there are guiding principles about increasing disorder in systems and
> > about the disapation of energy.
>
> Entropy.

Yes. I was trying to keep this out of the realms of physics jargon. But when I am talking
about the increasing disorder in a system, what I was talking about was entropy. There is
a technical definition, which for the moment escapes me but if anybody is interested, the
saints preserve us, I will dig it out and mail it to you personally or put it on my web
site. Any takers?

> A pretty useful meme as it can be generalized: you can project it to people (who waste
> resources by watching TV or mismanaging others) or to software tools / applications
> (e.g., code bloat).

and yes again.

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3g11zogge.fsf@lostwithiel.tfeb.org>
* William Deakin wrote:
>> The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy.

> I must disagree. There is no physical law that say this. In fact if
> I remember my thermodynamics there are guiding principles about
> increasing disorder in systems and about the disapation of energy.

Oh yes, there is.  All symmetries in a system correspond to conserved
quantities. Time symmetry in nature is equivalent to conservation of
energy, translation symmetry to conservation of momentum.
Relativistically these get unified as translation symmetry in 4-space,
and the conserved thing is the energy-momentum tensor.

These symmetries are very fundamental.  And off-topic for a Lisp group
of course.

--tim
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A85FD5.8EDC1E1D@pindar.com>
Tim Bradshaw wrote:

> * William Deakin wrote:
> >> The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy.
>
> > I must disagree. There is no physical law that say this. In fact if I
> remember my thermodynamics there are guiding principles about increasing
> disorder in systems and about the disapation of energy.
>
> Oh yes, there is.  All symmetries in a system correspond to conserved
> quantities. Time symmetry in nature is equivalent to conservation of
> energy, translation symmetry to conservation of momentum.
> Relativistically these get unified as translation symmetry in 4-space,
> and the conserved thing is the energy-momentum tensor. These symmetries
> are very fundamental.

OK. You are right. I can remember enough of my undergraduate
electrodynamics course to have to put my hand up about this. But what I
was thinking about was thermodynamic arguments about 'useful' energy.

The paragraphy I was challenging was:

Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> The guiding principle of nature is to preserve energy. The guiding
principle of market economy is to
> preserve resources (i.e. not to waste them).

What I read preserve energy to mean is preserve energy to do things. That
is not luke warm low grade energy as opposed to nice active doing
something motion type energy.

Also, trying to be slippery like an eel (and failing), what happens if you
have an open system or a disapative system? I would hope to argue that
these systems may not concerve energy locally (open systems) or do not
preserve energy, (as the energy is the converted to that health luke warm
bath water and tub rather than a nice piping hot steaming bath water). But
then again I'm more a solid-state kind of an idiot and not a
propellor-headed theory type expert ;-)

Best Regards,

:-) will
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lw672wrky3.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

	...

> Great technical design - complex problems, legally and business wise.
> 
> 
> But! There is LISP. Pure LISP programs can be mathematically proven and
> the process of doing so can be automated. If we are to rebuild our
> rule-engine in LISP (currently it's in Java), with a bit of effort we
> could probably have our rules inheriting this fancy feature from LISP. If
> the rule-sets can then be automatically verified to be matematically
> correct, that will be the vehicle by which it would make it possible to
> properly address legal issues.

Ahem.  I wouldn't go out on a limb (is the idiom correct?!? :) ) about
"verificability" of LISP programs.  Verification is a complex matter
which requires trick and a lot of savvy to implement for *any*
language.  I can claim that Lisp-based system are more easily
manipulated by the necessary pre-processors that must analyze the
code.  But as far as "proving" your program "correct" in a
mathematical sense, things may get really hairy.

As a matter of fact, only when you *restrict* the semantics of your
base-language (especially when you deal with concurrent stuff), you
can hope to have semi-automated "correctness" proofs (for a suitable
definition of "correctness").  In this case, LISP has an advantage as
the language of choice to build specialized extensions.  But is is not
a property of Lisp programs that of being "mathematically provably
correct".

In other words, be careful when you make such statements.  It may be
that your 'rule based system' may be proven correct.  But I ask, is it
a property of the semantics of your rule based system or is it a
property of the language it is implemented in?  I'd bet it is the
first.

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0408992041300001@ppp030-max03.twics.com>
[about automated proof of correctness of LISP programs...]

> In other words, be careful when you make such statements.  It may be
> that your 'rule based system' may be proven correct.  But I ask, is it
> a property of the semantics of your rule based system or is it a
> property of the language it is implemented in?  I'd bet it is the
> first.

Good point, but it doesn't really matter as long as you can achieve your goal.

And, actually it is the proof of correctness and integrity of rule-sets
that I am interested in not necessarily the rule-engine itself as that
would largely be covered by acceptance testing when deploying the
rule-engine.

The rule-sets however, will be amended and our customers will want to do
that by themselves at least for less complex requirements. It is of great
importance to design a customer support policy, that would accommodate
this.

An automated or computer aided verification of rule-sets would be a great
help to design such a policy.

Remind you, even a rule-set that might have been proven correct, may still
produce the wrong results, because it was based on assumptions that cannot
be upheld. However, if a rule-set fails that test in the first place, you
can identify, that any work on it is not work done as part of the support
agreement.
 
If customers will be able to verify the rule-sets by themselves, they will
not call the support centre and create a phantom problem. They will either
go back to the drawing board and fix the rule-set or they will ask us (or
any other third party) to provide a working rule-set for a fee.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3emhjog95.fsf@lostwithiel.tfeb.org>
* Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> I believe this is also an interesting example for LISP advocates, because
> the feature to prove LISP programs to be mathematically correct may have
> been regarded as something with few applications outside of academic work.
> The example shows, that such an "academic" feature may well make a
> difference in a business context and elegantly solve a problem you would
> otherwise need an army of lawyers to sort out. ;-)

Although Lisp is more tractable to prove things about than some other
languages, it's by no means the case that it is easy to prove
correctness for non-trivial programs in *any* language.  Indeed, if
you want to really worry about correctness proofs I think you end up
choosing languages which are considerably restricted compared with
most lisps -- pure functional languages with static type systems seem
to be a common choice.

--tim
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0508990322040001@ppp037-max03.twics.com>
> * Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> > I believe this is also an interesting example for LISP advocates, because
> > the feature to prove LISP programs to be mathematically correct may have
> > been regarded as something with few applications outside of academic work.
> > The example shows, that such an "academic" feature may well make a
> > difference in a business context and elegantly solve a problem you would
> > otherwise need an army of lawyers to sort out. ;-)
> 
> Although Lisp is more tractable to prove things about than some other
> languages, it's by no means the case that it is easy to prove
> correctness for non-trivial programs in *any* language.  Indeed, if
> you want to really worry about correctness proofs I think you end up
> choosing languages which are considerably restricted compared with
> most lisps -- pure functional languages with static type systems seem
> to be a common choice.

Agreed. But our "rules language" is considerably restricted, and the proof
of its rule-sets are what I would like to automate or have computer aided.

The question is, is there an advantage of using LISP to implement the
rule-engine. I tend to believe it looks promising enough to find out.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130304b3cd94718944@195.138.129.99>
Jerry Avins wrote:                [1999-08-03 21:30 -0400]

  [...]
  > I'm confused about the need for BCD. Surely, there can be no ambiguity
  > when converting (scaled) integer values to and from decimal notation for
  > I/O. Making the scaling factor 1000 to keep track of mils still leaves
  > room for representing plenty of dollars in a 32-bit signed int. (Few
  > transactions exceed 2 million.)
  [...]

At the very least, please note that not all transactions are in dollars.
With Italian lire, for example, the magnitudes are quite different
($1 is about 1800 Lire these days).

Besides, even if the amount of an individual transaction does not
exceed (say) 2,000,000, one would need to represent also the sum
total of all transactions, and there might be thousands of them
(and more).

More generally, a robust design must not introduce any rigid limits
about the maximum amount for a transaction (or such limits must
be very very generous), otherwise one risks yet another problem of
the same general category to which Y2K belongs.


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: ······@cwcom.net
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <I32q3.1006$Yu4.43560@news2-hme0.mcmail.com>
On 1999-08-03 ···············@xntv.pbz(BenjaminKowarsch) said:
   :But unlike many LISP people, COBOL and billing software developers
   :are often people with an accounting background, they are not
   :computer language scientists. They are more likely to think in
   :procedural ways than in OO and they would have a severe problem
   :with LISPs syntax.

Which is strange, given (a) the proximity of Forth, and (b) the usual
claim that Forth programmers who haven't been introduced to other
languages before Forth adapt readily to Forth. I do sometimes wonder if
the claims of "oh, they won't understand that" are based more on what
"they" are expected to understand, rather than any objective evaluation.

Anyhow, Lisp isn't OO, and Lisp does have procedural features (the PROG
form for one, which guarantees sequential evaluation).
--
the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A8B0E1.AC0D5A72@fisec.com>
······@cwcom.net wrote:
...
> Anyhow, Lisp isn't OO, 

Why do you believe Lisp is not OO?  Part of the Common Lisp standard is
an object system that supersedes all other known object systems in
abstraction, flexibility and sophistication.

> and Lisp does have procedural features (the PROG
> form for one, which guarantees sequential evaluation).

Because of Lisp's strict (as opposed to lazy) evaluation, most things in
Lisp execute in a known, often sequential order.  There are libraries
that allow lazy evaluation though, and of course you may use
multiprocessing.

Besides, very few CL programs are utilizing procedural features except
in macros if performance is crucial.  Most CL programs are predominantly
functional and/or object-oriented.

Robert
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwpv13ndgk.fsf@world.std.com>
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
  http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]

Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:

> 
> ······@cwcom.net wrote:
> ...
> > Anyhow, Lisp isn't OO, 
> 
> Why do you believe Lisp is not OO?  Part of the Common Lisp standard is
> an object system that supersedes all other known object systems in
> abstraction, flexibility and sophistication.

Sigh.  See my Lisp Pointers article "What's in a Name? // Uses and
Abuses of Lispy Terminology."

http://world.std.com/~pitman/PS/Name.html
From: ······@cwcom.net
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <VEHq3.1610$Yu4.62734@news2-hme0.mcmail.com>
On 1999-08-04 ·······@fisec.com said:
   ·······@cwcom.net wrote:
   :> Anyhow, Lisp isn't OO,
   :Why do you believe Lisp is not OO?  Part of the Common Lisp
   :standard is an object system that supersedes all other known object
   :systems in abstraction, flexibility and sophistication.

I presume you are posting from comp.lang.lisp, not comp.lang.lisp.common
or comp.lang.lisp.clos - so I reiterate, Lisp isn't OO. CLOS is an
extension to Lisp; it may now be a standard extension, but I do not
believe it was in the first few Common Lisp standards, and *certainly*
Lisp 1.5 wasn't OO. To claim that Lisp is an inherently OO language is
simply historical revisionism.

(We'll leave aside the partisan nature of your description of CLOS.)

And as far as market penetration goes, I'm willing to lay money on eLisp
being more common than Common Lisp, more frequently used, and more
widely understood. Does eLisp have built-in OO?

   :> and Lisp does have procedural features (the PROG
   :> form for one, which guarantees sequential evaluation).

   :Because of Lisp's strict (as opposed to lazy) evaluation, most
   :things in Lisp execute in a known, often sequential order.  There
   :are libraries that allow lazy evaluation though, and of course you
   :may use multiprocessing.

Quite. In any case, it's probably unwise to assume anything about
evaluation order in any functional language.
--
the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
From: Chuck Fry
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ofi2s$61j$1@shell5.ba.best.com>
I don't know why I'm posting on this thread... but at least I'm removing
comp.lang.forth.

In article <····················@news2-hme0.mcmail.com>,
>On 1999-08-04 ·······@fisec.com said:
>   ·······@cwcom.net wrote:
>   :> Anyhow, Lisp isn't OO,
>   :Why do you believe Lisp is not OO?  Part of the Common Lisp
>   :standard is an object system that supersedes all other known object
>   :systems in abstraction, flexibility and sophistication.
>
>I presume you are posting from comp.lang.lisp, not comp.lang.lisp.common
>or comp.lang.lisp.clos - so I reiterate, Lisp isn't OO. CLOS is an
>extension to Lisp; it may now be a standard extension, but I do not
>believe it was in the first few Common Lisp standards, and *certainly*
>Lisp 1.5 wasn't OO. To claim that Lisp is an inherently OO language is
>simply historical revisionism.

ANSI Common Lisp incorporates an OO *extension*, CLOS, that while quite
useful and thoughtfully designed, is not nearly an integral part of the
language to the degree object systems are in (e.g.) Java and Smalltalk.
You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
(and presumably many of us have).

IMHO, the CL standard largely ratified a body of existing practice in
predecessors such as Maclisp (not to be confused with *Macintosh* Common
Lisp) and Lisp Machine Lisp, which is why the object system is largely
an add-on.

>   :> and Lisp does have procedural features (the PROG
>   :> form for one, which guarantees sequential evaluation).
>
>   :Because of Lisp's strict (as opposed to lazy) evaluation, most
>   :things in Lisp execute in a known, often sequential order.  There
>   :are libraries that allow lazy evaluation though, and of course you
>   :may use multiprocessing.
>
>Quite. In any case, it's probably unwise to assume anything about
>evaluation order in any functional language.

ANSI Common Lisp specifies left-to-right execution order for the case of
function calls.  No such guarantee applies to executable code in macro
invocations and special forms.

But then, as is pointed out above, Common Lisp is not purely functional.

 -- Chuck
-- 
	    Chuck Fry -- Jack of all trades, master of none
 ······@chucko.com (text only please)  ········@home.com (MIME enabled)
Lisp bigot, mountain biker, car nut, sometime guitarist and photographer
The addresses above are real.  All spammers will be reported to their ISPs.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3iu6sla3q.fsf@lostwithiel.tfeb.org>
* Chuck Fry wrote:

> ANSI Common Lisp incorporates an OO *extension*, CLOS, that while quite
> useful and thoughtfully designed, is not nearly an integral part of the
> language to the degree object systems are in (e.g.) Java and Smalltalk.
> You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> (and presumably many of us have).

I find it difficult to accept a statement like this when you can't
specify methods for built-in types in Java, but can in Common Lisp.

(Smalltalk is another case.  Putting Java and smalltalk on the same
side of a distinction with CL is kind of weird).

--tim
From: Vassil Nikolov
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <l03130301b3d39e1ad59f@195.138.129.77>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:                [1999-08-09 03:10 +0900]

  [...]
  > While this may or may not leave room for Lisp being OO, isn't it, that
  > object oriented programming is more a question of programming style than a
  > question of syntax ?

Yes, it is least of all a matter of syntax.  And most of all it is a
matter of how data are treated: whether `identity matters,' as
Kent Pitman puts it, i.e. whether one handles objects by means of
references to them, and then on top of that whether one has
generic operations (in particular with run-type dispatch) and
possibly (though not necessarily) class inheritance (preferably
multiple).  In actual OO languages this is not just a matter of
programming style but quintessential to the language; in languages
that are not actually OO (such as C) one can then adopt an
object-oriented style if one so wishes (at various levels of pain;
it is reasonably painful in C and (my subjective assessment)
unreasonably painful (but still doable) in Fortran; COBOL seems
hard to assess.

  > A good example is Oberon, which is widely acknowledged to be object
  > oriented. Looking at its description you will find there is very little
  > change compared to Modula-2, which is not considered to be object
  > oriented. Oberon didn't even change the TYPE keyword into CLASS nor does
  > it have a METHOD keyword. Yet, the way it is being used and the
  > terminology used to describe the new style have led to acknowledgement of
  > it being an object oriented language.

CLU (at least as described in _Abstraction and Specification in Program
Development_ by Liskov and Guttag, 1986) does not speak of methods or
classes but is nevertheless object-oriented.

  [...]


Vassil Nikolov
Permanent forwarding e-mail: ········@poboxes.com
For more: http://www.poboxes.com/vnikolov
  Abaci lignei --- programmatici ferrei.





 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908990310440001@ppp038-max03.twics.com>
In article <···············@lostwithiel.tfeb.org>, Tim Bradshaw
<···@tfeb.org> wrote:

> * Chuck Fry wrote:
> 
> > ANSI Common Lisp incorporates an OO *extension*, CLOS, that while quite
> > useful and thoughtfully designed, is not nearly an integral part of the
> > language to the degree object systems are in (e.g.) Java and Smalltalk.
> > You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> > (and presumably many of us have).
> 
> I find it difficult to accept a statement like this when you can't
> specify methods for built-in types in Java, but can in Common Lisp.
> 
> (Smalltalk is another case.  Putting Java and smalltalk on the same
> side of a distinction with CL is kind of weird).

Alan Kay, one of the creators of Smalltalk is said to be the inventor of
object oriented programming and he is quoted on the Smalltalk web site to
have said:

"I invented thw term 'object oriented programming' and I can tell you I
didn't have C++ in mind."

While this may or may not leave room for Lisp being OO, isn't it, that
object oriented programming is more a question of programming style than a
question of syntax ?

A good example is Oberon, which is widely acknowledged to be object
oriented. Looking at its description you will find there is very little
change compared to Modula-2, which is not considered to be object
oriented. Oberon didn't even change the TYPE keyword into CLASS nor does
it have a METHOD keyword. Yet, the way it is being used and the
terminology used to describe the new style have led to acknowledgement of
it being an object oriented language.

There is obviously languages to support OO style better than others, but
if something like CLOS can be written in and for Lisp such that it is
being perceived as part of Lisp, that strongly suggests, that Lisp is
supporting OO style very well.

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-0908990800520001@194.163.195.67>
In article <································@ppp038-max03.twics.com>, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) wrote:

> A good example is Oberon, which is widely acknowledged to be object
> oriented.

Not really. Oberon-2 maybe - but not Oberon.
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABD42E.F6BA5118@fisec.com>
Chuck,

Thanks for replying to this mail, I never received the original.

Chuck Fry wrote:
> 
> I don't know why I'm posting on this thread... but at least I'm removing
> comp.lang.forth.
> 
> In article <····················@news2-hme0.mcmail.com>,
> >On 1999-08-04 ·······@fisec.com said:
> >   ·······@cwcom.net wrote:
> >   :> Anyhow, Lisp isn't OO,
> >   :Why do you believe Lisp is not OO?  Part of the Common Lisp
> >   :standard is an object system that supersedes all other known object
> >   :systems in abstraction, flexibility and sophistication.
> >
> >I presume you are posting from comp.lang.lisp, not comp.lang.lisp.common
> >or comp.lang.lisp.clos 

The nature of newsgroups and stock exchanges is that they are suitably
large to let groups of meaningful size interact.  Otherwise I would have
posted to comp.lang.lisp.beliefs.cured :-)

Other popular lisp derivatives (emacs lisp, autolisp, scheme) have their
own newsgroups.  Most traffic here is about Common Lisp. Comp.lang.clos
is not used very often, which may show that CLOS is more than just some
bolted-on extension in most people's mind.

> >- so I reiterate, Lisp isn't OO. CLOS is an
> >extension to Lisp; it may now be a standard extension, but I do not
> >believe it was in the first few Common Lisp standards, and *certainly*
> >Lisp 1.5 wasn't OO. To claim that Lisp is an inherently OO language is
> >simply historical revisionism.

This misconception is the (distant) third most popular after "lisp is
interpreted" and "lisp is slow". There is a reason why you have not
cited languages that match or exceed CL in OO-ness.

"Lisp was invented by John McCarthy in the late 1950's as a formalism
for reasoning about the use of recursion equations as a model for
computation. Of computer languages still in widespread use today, only
FORTRAN is older.

Lisp has evolved with the field of Computer Science, always putting the
best ideas from the field into practical use. In 1994, Common Lisp
became the first ANSI standard to incorporate object oriented
programming."  
(Quote from http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/table/history.htm)

OK, Lisp has survived a long time. Few would use Lisp 1.5 now, not
because it's not suitable for solving problems, but because Lisp has
actually been evolving.  Posting from comp.lang.lisp does not imply that
we may only write about the subset of features of all lisps in existence
in the last 41 years.

If anything, lisp was closer to being object-oriented than FORTRAN,
COBOL or PL/1.  As an example, think of the separation of concept and
implementation in the case of integers.  In most languages, if you
overflow a 32 bit integer, you get to some error handling if not crash.
CL (and most other lisps) will enlarge the space required to store the
result.  Functions like + will dispatch on the number so it can add
numbers fitting in register size as well as bignums.

Kent was kind to refer us to his article about naming things, and I do
not want to represent it poorly, so please read that yourself.  

There are a few other angles to the notion that CLOS is just an
extension.

Narrow argument: although CLOS was added to the ANSI standard in one
package, other (standard or quasi-standard) features depend on it, like
conditions or Gray streams.  And as Tim Bradshaw indicated, the
integration of types and classes in CL is unparalleled.  In addition,
object orientation has a deep history if you consider all the
forebearers of CLOS (Flavors, PCL, Common Loops, ...) - let alone
knowledge representation frameworks and other common idioms.

Broad argument: if your vehicle runs on gasoline as well as solar power,
and you prefer to run it on gasoline, how does your behavior eliminate
the solar-powered nature of it?  Many would rather have one dual powered
vehicle than two separate single-powered ones - and personally, I would
prefer to run it on solar power as much as I can!

If you ripped off DEFSTRUCT and DEFUN and only DEFCLASS and DEFMETHOD
can be used, how would CL be more OO than it already is?  Add a great
deal of other limitations such as lack of multiple inheritance and
multimethods and you got Smalltalk, an OO language. (Yes, even more
mutilation, and a couple of decades, and you get Oak .. er, Java.)

The enabler nature of a standard feature is what counts, rather than the
number of pages in the standard dealing with the feature relative to the
full standard.

It's misleading to bring up the question of how inherent OO is in Lisp -
not only because it's unclear if the original poster meant CL or the
Lisp "family" - but also because it is always subjective in the case of
a system as complex and rich as Common Lisp. (Arguments apply for Lisp
as "family" as it includes CL hence it is at least as complex or rich as
CL itself.)

If one is limited by your tools, rather than his imagination, you may
attribute inherent features to his crutches.  Otherwise, it's as
meaningless as talking about inherent properties of a Monty Pythons
performance. -- Anyway, inherentness is nothing to do with whether CL is
OO or not.

Object Oriented-ness, as a buzzword, reminds me of the folling scenario:
In my current environment (SAP consulting), one may get a certificate
(Certified SAP consultant) if he passes certain tests.  It's common that
beginners go for it after about 2 years of experience, because it tests
their fundamental knowledge and it improves their resumes.  People who
acquired the required knowledge before the introduction of the
certification program, however, tend not to go for it, because it would
not make them cleverer, and on average it is obvious that one with 6
years of experience is more skilled and capable than someone who is
showing off with his recently acquired certificate.

...
> >   :> and Lisp does have procedural features (the PROG
> >   :> form for one, which guarantees sequential evaluation).
> >
> >   :Because of Lisp's strict (as opposed to lazy) evaluation, most
> >   :things in Lisp execute in a known, often sequential order.  There
> >   :are libraries that allow lazy evaluation though, and of course you
> >   :may use multiprocessing.
> >
> >Quite. In any case, it's probably unwise to assume anything about
> >evaluation order in any functional language.

In this regard, there is a huge difference between strict and lazy, pure
and impure functional languages.  It is probably explained in the
comp.lang.functional FAQ.  What you said is true for lazy, pure
languages in general, but lisp is strict and impure in general*.  Here
is a common idiom that utilizes the knowledge of execution order:

(or *value* 'default)

which results *value* if it is non-nil or 'default if *value* is nil.

Follow-ups on this to comp.lang.functional.

*You can make lisp do whatever you want, even to be lazy, thanks to
Screamer and probably other libraries.

Regards
Robert
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-0908991455290001@ppp048-max03.twics.com>
> It's misleading to bring up the question of how inherent OO is in Lisp -
> not only because it's unclear if the original poster meant CL or the
> Lisp "family" - but also because it is always subjective in the case of
> a system as complex and rich as Common Lisp.

This reminds of of a citation of Niklaus Wirth, creator of the Pascal
variety of languages, who is said to once have complained about OO being a
misnomer suggesting that "Subject-Oriented" would have been a better term
:-)

Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <87so5txpt0.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:

> > It's misleading to bring up the question of how inherent OO is in Lisp -
> > not only because it's unclear if the original poster meant CL or the
> > Lisp "family" - but also because it is always subjective in the case of
> > a system as complex and rich as Common Lisp.
> 
> This reminds of of a citation of Niklaus Wirth, creator of the Pascal
> variety of languages, who is said to once have complained about OO being a
> misnomer suggesting that "Subject-Oriented" would have been a better term
> :-)

This would be right for the usual "OO" languages (of the message
passing style), which treat one object specially, which would
therefore be considered the subject.

But CLOS with it's generic function based approach to object-oriented
programming really is object oriented in a sense, with the GF merging
the roles of verb and subject into one, and all objects being treated
equally.  See deja.com for a discussion on this exact issue some time
ago.  So we can conclude that CL is one of very few OO languages. ;)

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Brook Conner
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3d7wvecql.fsf@ts008d37.nyh-ny.concentric.net>
>>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre R Mai <····@acm.org> writes:

Pierre> ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin Kowarsch) writes:
>> > It's misleading to bring up the question of how inherent OO is in
>> Lisp - > not only because it's unclear if the original poster meant
>> CL or the > Lisp "family" - but also because it is always
>> subjective in the case of > a system as complex and rich as Common
>> Lisp.
>> 
>> This reminds of of a citation of Niklaus Wirth, creator of the
>> Pascal variety of languages, who is said to once have complained
>> about OO being a misnomer suggesting that "Subject-Oriented" would
>> have been a better term :-)

Yes, well, Wirth is being "punny", isn't he?


Now, before terminology gets too messy, I'm going to make it clear
that I'm going to use "message" to be the dynamically bound thing (the
generic function in CLOS), while the "method" is the code that
implements a message.

Linguistically (or perhaps, though less likely, Wirth was punning on
Post-Modern terminology), the "subject" performs the action and the
"object" is the thing to which the action is done (for the pomos,
equivalently, we have the subject gazing upon the object).

This view is correct as long as you're *inside* the object, i.e.,
inside the *method* actually performing the action. Then the
object/instance is the active subject, and other parameters (i.e.,
non-receivers) are "direct or indirect objects." But suppose you're
outside the object for a moment. Then the answer is less clear.  Now,
the message is being sent - i.e., the receiver is no longer the
immediately obvious most-active participant, as someone else is
sending the message. If the message is the verb, is the receiver the
subject of the verb or the object?

Pierre> This would be right for the usual "OO" languages (of the
Pierre> message passing style), which treat one object specially,
Pierre> which would therefore be considered the subject.

I'd suggest it depends on the message. Some read like imperative
commands, e.g., run, jump, reboot. The receiver is the subject in this
case, as it is the one receiving the imperative. But other methods are
more declarative or descriptive. Get/set stuff falls into this
category, as do methods on objects that are conceptually more passive
(e.g., chairs, files). Now the receiver is the object, or possibly
even the indirect object.

Pierre> But CLOS with it's generic function based approach to
Pierre> object-oriented programming really is object oriented in a
Pierre> sense, with the GF merging the roles of verb and subject into
Pierre> one,

I'd suggest that more typically, the GF is the verb *only* and not the 
subject.  Let's take a simple example - addition. When you use the GF
"add", what is the subject? Is "add" the subject? Only if you use a
sentence like "The GF called add does its thing with parameter 1 and
parameter 2" to describe (add param1 param2). Here, the GF is the
subject because it is an object, with a single message - evaluation.
Is that what you meant? Certainly, I tend not to think of "add" as a
thing but as an action, and I'd suggest that this is not the way most
object-oriented designs are structured.

Access messages (get/set and the like) make this even more emphatic:

(getcolor foo)

Who's being told to get the color of foo? It reads like the Lisp
engine is being told to get the color (which is of course what is
really happening). But that kind of model gives you one central
control object - a big fat hairy nasty global variable. To me, that
would most likely be a poor design.

No, I'd suggest that CLOS in common use more often follows a
linguistic sentence syntax of Verb-Subject-Object (VSO), rather than,
e.g., SVO of English and most single-receiver OOPLs (especially when
restricted to conceptually active objects).

Pierre> and all objects being treated equally.  See deja.com for

Nit -- object order can matter, so not all objects are treated equally 
:-)

Pierre> a discussion on this exact issue some time ago.  So we can
Pierre> conclude that CL is one of very few OO languages. ;)

Or one of the very few languages that emphasizes the lingusitic object 
rather than the concrete object, and so forces a great deal of passive 
sentence construction and indirection :-)


Brook

-- 
Vootie!
---------
Sent in perverse delight from the One True Editor!
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwhfm7pf8w.fsf@world.std.com>
Brook Conner <········@concentric.net> writes:

> I'd suggest that more typically, the GF is the verb *only* and not the 
> subject.

Yes, but the point is also that in Lisp there are often multiple arguments.
This wasn't a divergence from OO per se, but rather the solution to an
overconstrained problem of how to stay OO once there was not a single focus.
It's natural once you realize that sentences have only one verb and 
potentially more than one argument to have to slide the "programming" to
the modular point--at the verb.  That doesn't change the object-oriented
nature, in the sense that each object is still something with identity and
with various interesting interfaces that it chooses to expose or not.

CL has WITH-SLOTS (like Pascal's "with", I understand, though I've not used
that) and WITH-ACCESSORS exactly in order to allow you to control where, when,
and upon what you focus--or to allow multiple focuses to be active at once.  

Of course, you can say that the essence of OO is to deny the right to have
multiple objects in focus at once, but I think that would be sad.  If you 
allow yourself to ever say the sentence "I'd like to be able to focus on
multiple things at once" or "I'd like to be able to talk about symmetric
definitions where I'm operating on a fixnum and a float while not revealing
that one has higher priority than the other" then you necessarily must devise
a way around conventional class-centric packagings.  And when you do, you're
where CLOS is.

CLOS permits all the OO style anyone wants to do, I think.  Some of the 
operators could maybe use a little tuning, but all the conventional OO
capabilities are there.  It's just that, like most other things in Lisp,
it's pushed on to the next question after that.

> I'd suggest that CLOS in common use more often follows a
> linguistic sentence syntax of Verb-Subject-Object (VSO), rather than,
> e.g., SVO of English and most single-receiver OOPLs (especially when
> restricted to conceptually active objects).

Or VOO or VSS or wahtever.  The point is that CLOS acknowledges the
idea that you might need a matrix of operands all of which have
potentially equal standing.  CLOS doesn't go as far as to actually allow
you to say, as we wrestled with at least internally in the design of
Macsyma "This operator is commutative", but it's a step in the direction
of being able to say that because it's getting you out of thinking that
all operations in the world rely around the first argument.
 
This is why I say that OO is properly thought of not in terms of "SEND",
which is an implementation artifact and expressional tool, but in terms of
identity (which is about a property that needs to be preserved and respected
regardless of what goes on syntactically).

> Pierre> a discussion on this exact issue some time ago.  So we can
> Pierre> conclude that CL is one of very few OO languages. ;)
> 
> Or one of the very few languages that emphasizes the lingusitic object 
> rather than the concrete object, and so forces a great deal of passive 
> sentence construction and indirection :-)

Well, I think it emphasizes both.

As to linguistics, the thing I think it emphasizes most is that the question
of SVO or SOV or whatever is an after-the-fact artifact attached by linguists.
Many people learn language without knowing these facts.  And to some
extent, GFs are like this. We can impose an SVO theory of practice on them,
but they stand as what they are--i.e., as something useful--even in the
absence of the imposition of such linguistic analysis.  Some things in
natural language parsing don't have an "obvious parse" even to skilled 
linguists.  We could fight over things like whether the underlying
structure of "I am not fred" parses as "is(i,not(fred))" or "not(is)(i,fred)".
That's because the sentence defines its meaning and the linguistics is a
hobby done by bored people after the fact.  One can get work done without
it.  So, too, with CL.  Sometimes I wonder about some of these other things,
where you're not free to impose your own model but must bend yourself to
someone else's theory because the syntax is less flexible.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7pv0uk2j4.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:11:59 GMT, 
"Kent" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

Kent> This is why I say that OO is properly thought of not in terms of
Kent> "SEND", which is an implementation artifact and expressional tool, but
Kent> in terms of identity (which is about a property that needs to be
Kent> preserved and respected regardless of what goes on syntactically).

I have been wondering a bit about this; this identity criterion would also
apply to structs in the C language, where you could define a struct's address
as its identity, and to tuples in a proper relational relation, where the
primary key serves that role, etc. I'm personally quite happy to treat data
('nouns') and behaviour ('verbs') as separate, because, well, they are. What
I am less sure about is whether it is good to completely hide the
distinction, in syntax/appearance, between normal function calls and generic
function calls. I.e., the fact that in (DRAW WINDOW SHAPE), DRAW could be
generic or ordinary can be confusing when reading somebody else's code. But
maybe I am just confused.
                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwr9lapdiv.fsf@world.std.com>
Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:

> I am less sure about is whether it is good to completely hide the
> distinction, in syntax/appearance, between normal function calls and generic
> function calls. I.e., the fact that in (DRAW WINDOW SHAPE), DRAW could be
> generic or ordinary can be confusing when reading somebody else's code. But
> maybe I am just confused.

This is a matter entirely for redefinition.  Absent redefinitin, you cannot
tell whether someone defined this by a big COND or by a generic.  So why not
hide it?  It's irrelevant.  Put another way, what materially interesting
computation can you do based on the knowledge that it is a generic other
than redefinition.  And when it comes to redefinition, generic or not,
you still need to read its doc if you didn't write it to find out if you
have any business adding a method to it and what the contract of that
method is.  If you're going to read the doc, and if the doc might say
"this is not generic, but you can still customize it and here's how..."
then why is that different than it being generic other than in the letters
you type on a keyboard?  

I just don't see that this is anything wrong.  It's impossible to tell
if you're confused or not, but I'd suggest making your concern more
concrete so we can take some potshots at it.  The point is not to embarrass
you but to make sure we expose these vague feelings to discussion.
Only by saying what you fear can we examine those fears.  If you just 
say you have fears, we're pretty much obliged to apply a boolean and
either believe you without foundation or disbelieve you without foundation.
Neither of those options is very appealing.

I go out on a limb routinely with wild and half-baked thoughts on a variety
of things, sometimes just to prepare the discussion forum so that it will
seem less unusual for poeple to follow suit.  Complex things don't get any
simpler by not talking about them, and creating an atmosphere of rigor in
which you can only talk about things you completely understand pretty much
assures we will all die before talking about those things that are thus
complex.  Personally, I'd rather have some fun discussions hampered by
our own linguistic skills, partial knowledge, faulty wisdom, etc. than
have some boring discussions that were provably right or wrong.  

So tell me: why do you care when you read (DRAW WINDOW SHAPE) whether
the function is generic or not?  Is it a speed issue?  An issue of
whether someone will extend it incorrectly and you're worried that
will introduce risk?  Is it just a (possibly invasive) desire to know
what goes on behind close doors?  Is it a fear that you yourself are
supposed to be customizing something that you haven't?  Have you
reloaded some of the files and do you worry that it didn't get redefined
fully because only some methods got reloaded?  There are possible reasons
(though whether eany are good reasons we could talk about);
it's impossible to guess if any of them are yours, though, unless you say.
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7ogge5n5g.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
> Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:
>> I am less sure about is whether it is good to completely hide the
>> distinction, in syntax/appearance, between normal function calls and generic
>> function calls. I.e., the fact that in (DRAW WINDOW SHAPE), DRAW could be
>> generic or ordinary can be confusing when reading somebody else's code. But
>> maybe I am just confused.

> This is a matter entirely for redefinition.  Absent redefinitin, you cannot
> tell whether someone defined this by a big COND or by a generic.  

yes, I actually hadn't thought of that ... so even in the absence of
defgeneric + defmethods, an implementation may do something very similar.

[ much stuff elided, which pretty much hit the nail on the head; the fears
  are indeed vaguish ]

> So tell me: why do you care when you read (DRAW WINDOW SHAPE) whether
> the function is generic or not?  Is it a speed issue?  

yes, partly, although I have no experience with it, but I suppose it's
(a probably unfounded) fear nonetheless.

> An issue of whether someone will extend it incorrectly and you're worried
> that will introduce risk?

no, but then again I don't work in an environment where this is a problem.

> Is it just a (possibly invasive) desire to know what goes on behind close
> doors?

yes; I suppose it makes me feel less 'in control'; after some thought I
should probably conclude that it's just the opposite ;-) It's perhaps similar
to just wanting to know if a URL is in cache or not, or whether an object
reference is localish or remotish.

> Is it a fear that you yourself are supposed to be customizing something
> that you haven't?

in that case, I wouldn't have read the docs, which could happen in any
others case too, so no, that can't be it. 

> Have you reloaded some of the files and do you worry that it didn't get
> redefined fully because only some methods got reloaded?

yes, another one I hadn't thought of !

> There are possible reasons
> (though whether eany are good reasons we could talk about);
> it's impossible to guess if any of them are yours, though, unless you say.

Thanks for allowing me to lie on the C.L.L couch and formulate fears I couldn't
even pronounce before ! :-) 

                                                                      Philip
-- 
#D( ... ) : Lisp reader macro representing a DISARRAY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r4c6r.6v8.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On 11 Aug 1999 11:57:51 +0100, Philip Lijnzaad wrote:
>"Kent" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

>Kent> This is why I say that OO is properly thought of not in terms of
>Kent> "SEND", which is an implementation artifact and expressional tool, but
>Kent> in terms of identity (which is about a property that needs to be
>Kent> preserved and respected regardless of what goes on syntactically).

>I have been wondering a bit about this; this identity criterion would also
>apply to structs in the C language, where you could define a struct's address

It does -- but C fails to be an OO language because the simple act of
passing the struct to a subroutine destroys the object's identity by
implicitly copying.

It's easy enough to use C in an OO way, and I've done it often enough.
It's easier to use a language which was built for it.

>primary key serves that role, etc. I'm personally quite happy to treat data
>('nouns') and behaviour ('verbs') as separate, because, well, they are. What

Are they?  There are human languages which don't have the distinction --
right now I can only think of Lojban, but there are some real languages as
well.

>I am less sure about is whether it is good to completely hide the
>distinction, in syntax/appearance, between normal function calls and generic
>function calls. I.e., the fact that in (DRAW WINDOW SHAPE), DRAW could be
>generic or ordinary can be confusing when reading somebody else's code. But
>maybe I am just confused.

I thought that the nice thing about generics is that they work like defuns.

I suppose CLOS could have used a 'SEND' function instead of making
messages work as functions.

>                                                                      Philip

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwn1vxv9ra.fsf@world.std.com>
········@dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) writes:

> C fails to be an OO language because the simple act of
> passing the struct to a subroutine destroys the object's identity by
> implicitly copying.

Not to mention the effect of casting.

And the inability to receive something that's untyped and recover its type.
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991647140001@ppp025-max03.twics.com>
> >primary key serves that role, etc. I'm personally quite happy to treat data
> >('nouns') and behaviour ('verbs') as separate, because, well, they are. What
> 
> Are they?  There are human languages which don't have the distinction --
> right now I can only think of Lojban, but there are some real languages as
> well.

Very good point!

Noun and verb is part of a terminology for Latin grammar and works best
with inflected languages, especially those that are structured similar to
Latin.

For agglutinative languages it is at times very difficult to describe
grammar using this terminology. In most agglutinative languages, the verb
can contain both subject and object, by use of prepended or appended
modifiers. Now, do you call such a verb a verb or a noun or what else ? Is
the stem a verb and the modifier a noun or vice versa or is it something
different all together ?

Also adjectives are often used in those languages, such that we would call
them nouns and nouns can be adverbs etc etc.

Chinese (not an agglutinative language though) has verbs that are
technically nouns, kind of action nouns, they are not modified with any
pre- or postfixes and they are pretty much treated like nouns. We only
call them verbs because the translation of their meaning suggests they
are.

I think Kent was hitting the nail earlier, by saying that the terminology
we use to describe grammar is nothing but a tool that we invented long
after the language was in existence and functional, and therefore this
terminology has to be considered a model. We could as well use a different
model and the language itself doesn't require any model at all. The model
is just for us.

Many far eastern cultures did not even have any grammar before they got
into contact with western culture even though they had literacy for a long
time.

 
Benjamin

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: OT: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B2D996.6DAD7301@fisec.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
...
> For agglutinative languages it is at times very difficult to describe
> grammar using this terminology. In most agglutinative languages, the verb
> can contain both subject and object, by use of prepended or appended
> modifiers. Now, do you call such a verb a verb or a noun or what else ? Is
> the stem a verb and the modifier a noun or vice versa or is it something
> different all together ?

It makes no difference.

The way you can conceptualize it is that you think of a hidden subject,
which is there, but is not embodied in the sentence.  Something similar
happens in English, where if you say: "Come here!", "you" is the hidden
subject.  It is straightforward (from primary school on) to understand
how conjugation changes the word (e.g., changing a noun into an
adjective), so luckily there are no difficulties at all. By the way,
subject and especially object representation in conjugation is very
limited - you can use a pronoun "mixin" in a verb instance, but you can
not use a full-blown subject.

Robert
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwn1vx1kxd.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
········@dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) writes:

> I thought that the nice thing about generics is that they work like defuns.
> 
> I suppose CLOS could have used a 'SEND' function instead of making
> messages work as functions.

No. It could have not.  Multiple dispatch is different from single
dispatch (Smalltalk *and* C++) and from overloading (C++).  Obviously
it is more powerful and expressive (at a - realitively small - price
in "efficiency").

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Howard R. Stearns
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B2EDD2.3DBDF5DC@citydesktopinc.com>
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> 
> ········@dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) writes:
> 
> > I thought that the nice thing about generics is that they work like defuns.
> >
> > I suppose CLOS could have used a 'SEND' function instead of making
> > messages work as functions.
> 
> No. It could have not.  Multiple dispatch is different from single
> dispatch (Smalltalk *and* C++) and from overloading (C++).  Obviously
> it is more powerful and expressive (at a - realitively small - price
> in "efficiency").
> 
> Cheers

I always get nervous whenever someone says something that might be
interpreted as meaning that something in Lisp is inheritently
inefficient -- even if in a "relatively small" way. I'd like to clarify:

When single and multiple dispatch are implemented in the most common
runtime-dispatch ways, on the common architecture of today, then I agree
that sending a single message to a single object may be more efficient
than calling a generic function specialized on one argument.  However,

1. There are other implementation techniques that could change this if
it were truly an issue.  These might include, but are not limited to:
  - special casing generic functions dispatched on only the first
argument 
    so that they are implemented the same way as, say C++ tables.
  - compile-time dispatching
  - hardware assist.
These are separate from, and not precluded by, the Lisp language
definition.

2. There is anecdotal evidence that in real world applications, what
would be coded by several single dispatch methods in C++ are coded using
a single multiple-dispatch generic function in Lisp.  There is no reason
to believe that such applications are any slower when done this way, and
some suggestion that they might be faster.  (Can anyone cite studies?)

The point is just that people should be cautious about drawing
efficiency conclusions about CLOS.
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwwvuyzoto.fsf@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it>
Howard is right to be concerned.  It is just me who is way too
sensitive to accusations of imprecision (I can be very imprecise :) ),
so I got too "cautios" in my statement.

E.g you may easily argue that multiple dispatch is "more efficient" in
terms of code production.

Cheers


-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r6gbg.925.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On 12 Aug 1999 10:07:42 +0200, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>········@dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) writes:

>> I thought that the nice thing about generics is that they work like defuns.

>> I suppose CLOS could have used a 'SEND' function instead of making
>> messages work as functions.

>No. It could have not.  Multiple dispatch is different from single
>dispatch (Smalltalk *and* C++) and from overloading (C++).  Obviously
>it is more powerful and expressive (at a - realitively small - price
>in "efficiency").

Okay, although I agree with every word you just said, I find that I still
agree with what I said.  Why on Earth would multiple dispatch be
unimplementable by a seperate function?

Unless you're making the almost comical assumption that I'm talking about
single dispatch.  How WOULD you come to that conclusion (and did you)?

I'm too confused to continue.

>Marco Antoniotti ===========================================

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented (was: Is LISP or Latin dying?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <87d7wnlp1q.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@copernico.parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

> ········@dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) writes:
> 
> > I thought that the nice thing about generics is that they work like defuns.
> > 
> > I suppose CLOS could have used a 'SEND' function instead of making
> > messages work as functions.
> 
> No. It could have not.  Multiple dispatch is different from single
> dispatch (Smalltalk *and* C++) and from overloading (C++).  Obviously
> it is more powerful and expressive (at a - realitively small - price
> in "efficiency").

Well, SEND could always be implemented via apply in CLOS:

(defun SEND (message &rest arguments)
  (apply message arguments))

If you moved GFs from the function namespace to another hidden
namespace, GFs as functions could be eliminated, thereby making SEND
the only interface:

(defvar *message-namespace* (make-hash-table :test #'eq)
  "Global Namespace of 'messages'.")

(defvar *message-discriminating-functions* (make-hash-table :test #'eq)
  "Global Namespace of DFs.")

(defmacro register-message (message lambda-list &rest stuff)
  `(let ((message-object (ensure-message ...)))
     (setf (gethash message *message-namespace*)
           message-object)
     (setf (gethash message *message-discriminating-functions*)
           (compute-discriminating-function message-object))))

(defun SEND (message &rest arguments)
  (apply (gethash message *message-discriminating-functions*) arguments))

OTOH this SEND has next-to-nothing to do with the SEND of other
message-passing-style languages, and it serves no useful purpose
besides demonstrating that you can make your life more difficult if
you really want to... ;)

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABDB4F.4FE768C4@fisec.com>
Chuck Fry wrote:

> You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> (and presumably many of us have).

True, and it's great that CL lets YOU determine the particular approach
(functional, procedural, logic, object-oriented, polymorphic
functional...).

Nitpick: You have probably used the condition system on your project.

Although there are few reasons to write applications without functions
that are not generic functions or methods, it's trivially doable.  The
incentive is low as DEFUN is part of Common Lisp anyway.

There should not be a performance hit caused by using DEFMETHOD's
instead of DEFUN's, as probably most implementations (LW for sure) would
compile a non-specialized, singular DEFMETHOD similarly to a DEFUN at
given settings.  Superficially a DEFUN can be thought of as a simple,
special-case DEFGENERIC / DEFMETHOD, but it comes handy if you are used
to it, have legacy code, want to bootstrap, want higher speed portably,
or most importantly, you want to express that there is no dispatching
involved, similarly to using (when foo bar) instead of (if foo bar).

This is not to say you cannot build a reasonably efficient object system
atop of a CLOS-less lisp.

Robert
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABDB80.5F361F99@fisec.com>
Chuck Fry wrote:

> You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> (and presumably many of us have).

True, and it's great that CL lets YOU determine the particular approach
(functional, procedural, logic, object-oriented, polymorphic
functional...).

Nitpick: You have probably used the condition system on your project.

Although there are few reasons to write applications without functions
that are not generic functions or methods, it's trivially doable.  The
incentive is low as DEFUN is part of Common Lisp anyway.

There should not be a performance hit caused by using DEFMETHOD's
instead of DEFUN's, as probably most implementations (LW for sure) would
compile a non-specialized, singular DEFMETHOD similarly to a DEFUN at
given settings.  Superficially a DEFUN can be thought of as a simple,
special-case DEFGENERIC / DEFMETHOD, but it comes handy if you are used
to it, have legacy code, want to bootstrap, want higher speed portably,
or most importantly, you want to express that there is no dispatching
involved, similarly to using (when foo bar) instead of (if foo bar).

This is not to say you cannot build a reasonably efficient object system
atop of a CLOS-less lisp.

Robert
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABDBAF.EB0BC463@fisec.com>
Chuck Fry wrote:

> You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> (and presumably many of us have).

True, and it's great that CL lets YOU determine the particular approach
(functional, procedural, logic, object-oriented, polymorphic
functional...).

Nitpick: You have probably used the condition system on your project.

Although there are few reasons to write applications without functions
that are not generic functions or methods, it's trivially doable.  The
incentive is low as DEFUN is part of Common Lisp anyway.

There should not be a performance hit caused by using DEFMETHOD's
instead of DEFUN's, as probably most implementations (LW for sure) would
compile a non-specialized, singular DEFMETHOD similarly to a DEFUN at
given settings.  Superficially a DEFUN can be thought of as a simple,
special-case DEFGENERIC / DEFMETHOD, but it comes handy if you are used
to it, have legacy code, want to bootstrap, want higher speed portably,
or most importantly, you want to express that there is no dispatching
involved, similarly to using (when foo bar) instead of (if foo bar).

This is not to say you cannot build a reasonably efficient object system
atop of a CLOS-less lisp.

Robert
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABDBA1.CC8B6390@fisec.com>
Chuck Fry wrote:

> You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> (and presumably many of us have).

True, and it's great that CL lets YOU determine the particular approach
(functional, procedural, logic, object-oriented, polymorphic
functional...).

Nitpick: You have probably used the condition system on your project.

Although there are few reasons to write applications without functions
that are not generic functions or methods, it's trivially doable.  The
incentive is low as DEFUN is part of Common Lisp anyway.

There should not be a performance hit caused by using DEFMETHOD's
instead of DEFUN's, as probably most implementations (LW for sure) would
compile a non-specialized, singular DEFMETHOD similarly to a DEFUN at
given settings.  Superficially a DEFUN can be thought of as a simple,
special-case DEFGENERIC / DEFMETHOD, but it comes handy if you are used
to it, have legacy code, want to bootstrap, want higher speed portably,
or most importantly, you want to express that there is no dispatching
involved, similarly to using (when foo bar) instead of (if foo bar).

This is not to say you cannot build a reasonably efficient object system
atop of a CLOS-less lisp.

Robert
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Lisp is object oriented
Date: 
Message-ID: <37ABDC62.5E69C86D@fisec.com>
Chuck Fry wrote:

> You can write substantial applications in ANSI CL and never touch CLOS
> (and presumably many of us have).

True, and it's great that CL lets YOU determine the particular approach
(functional, procedural, logic, object-oriented, polymorphic
functional...).

Nitpick: You have probably used the condition system on your project.
Question: if you don't use objects and classes in general, what's the
reason?

Although there are few reasons to write applications without functions
that are not generic functions or methods, it's trivially doable.  The
incentive is low as DEFUN is part of Common Lisp anyway.

There should not be a performance hit caused by using DEFMETHOD's
instead of DEFUN's, as probably most implementations (LW for sure) would
compile a non-specialized, singular DEFMETHOD similarly to a DEFUN at
given settings.  Superficially a DEFUN can be thought of as a simple,
special-case DEFGENERIC / DEFMETHOD, but it comes handy if you are used
to it, have legacy code, want to bootstrap, want higher speed portably,
or most importantly, you want to express that there is no dispatching
involved, similarly to using (when foo bar) instead of (if foo bar).

This is not to say you cannot build a reasonably efficient object system
atop of a CLOS-less lisp.

Robert
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwk8r8l3uo.fsf@world.std.com>
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
  http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]

······@cwcom.net writes:

> I do not
> believe it was in the first few Common Lisp standards, and *certainly*
> Lisp 1.5 wasn't OO. To claim that Lisp is an inherently OO language is
> simply historical revisionism.

Only if you use the meaning-du-jour of OO.

The original meaning of OO, which has itself been a victim of historical
revisionism and/or just marketing hype/co-opting was that "identity
matters".  Lisp, with and without CLOS, has always been referred to 
as object-oriented in my memory.  That was usually used as the way to
distinguish it from myriad other languages that "copied" their arguments
(in a call-by-value call) and lost their identity.

Some object-oriented languages have had user-extensible characteristics
since the start, like Smalltalk.  Others have added it later.  But what
always unified them was the notion of dynamically accessible type, and
the notion that the compiler was not free to substitute an equal
object with alternate identity at its own whim.

See also my article 
 http://world.std.com/~pitman/PS/Name.html
which picked up on this abuse of object-oriented years ago.
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37A6BA80.603F@armory.com>
Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
> CsO wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Kowarsch wrote...
> > Martin Rodgers wrote:
> > >> Lisp and Forth may be minority languages, but then so is any language
> > >> not called Cobol. ;)
> > >Very true (infortunately IMHO).
> >
> > ok, this thread has lost it already so i don't
> > feel too bad about adding more OT stuff...
> >
> > is this 'more lines of COBOL than all...' bit
> > actually still true?
> > ok, when the only competition was FORTRAN,
> > LISP, ALGOL, PL/1, whatever, i'm sure it was
> > but in  1999?
> > naaa!
> > what do you think (or know)?
> 
> Old programs never die, never die, never die.
> Old programs never die, they don't even* fade away.
> 
> *Remove "even" if you want it to scan.
> 
> I know a few programmers who have been working on Y2K issues for over a
> year. Most of their HLL work has been on COBOL. Some of these programs
> are so old that the documentation has been lost, and often nobody knows
> all of their functions or interfaces. There are few enough COBOL
> programmers left so that one of them came out of retirement to join the
> fun. From this anecdotal evidence, I would say that COBOL is more alive
> than Latin.
> 
> Jerry
----------------------------------
Arma virumque cano Troiae qui primus ab oris
Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit
Litora multe ille et terris jactatus et alto
Qui superum saevae memorem Junonis ab iram

Nope, stil works...
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz  ·······@armory.com  ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew
-Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew
Europe Naples Italy: http://ftp.unina.it/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
From: ······@cwcom.net
Subject: Re: Is LISP or Latin dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <D32q3.1005$Yu4.43560@news2-hme0.mcmail.com>
On 1999-08-03 ·······@armory.com said:
   :Arma virumque cano Troiae qui primus ab oris
   :Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit
   :Litora multe ille et terris jactatus et alto
   :Qui superum saevae memorem Junonis ab iram

Rewrite it in COBOL and I'll let you know.
--
the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a6212a.350972@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 23:20:20 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>> > "English (Scotts, Welsh)" 
>
>> AIUI, that should be Scots. Just the one 't'.
>
>Boy - what a lapsus :-) :-) :-) My apologies. Must have been late... ;-)

	Hey, yeah! Even if I parenthesised my ancestors incorrectly, I
spelled them good!
	I promise I won't tell anyone, though.


(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37a587be.4616716@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 17:49:25 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>That's what I thought at first. But then again, there were enough
>references suggesting a post independence war period to be included and
>certainly the killing of native Americans didn't stop with the US coming
>into existence.

	Trying to impose perfect order on a newsgroup thread about 
Ameircans and their ancestors killing Native Americans which began
with the question whether LISP is dying?

	Anyway, they'd be pioneers.  The settler's ``gifts'' to the
Native Americans proved to be the gifts that just kept on giving, and
giving and giving ... though the demographic decline has reversed in
most parts of North and South American in this century.

>Perhaps it is convenient for Americans to call their European brothers for
>help when shouldering the burden of their not so heroic parts of history.

	The biggest demographic hit was earliest, as when any
substantially higher density = more disease riddled human population
runs up against a substantially lower density = healthier population.


>Also, I would like to remind you that the notation "English (Scotts,
>Welsh)" may have gotten you into trouble in the UK as it could be
>construed as the Scotts and Welsh being part of the English, they
>vehemently would dismiss any such idea, alternatively, they wouldn't like
>to be placed in parentheses if the English seem to dominate over the
>content. :-)

	Certainly more accurate for the 1600s than for the 1700s.
Certainly the 1700s are when a lot of the Scots Irish came over.

>it's like writing "the Yankees (Canadians, Mexicans)..."

	More like Yankees (Southerners, Texans).  It should have been
written ENglish & Scottish & Welsh.  Apologies all around.  Like I
want Sean Connery on my case! 
 
>>         How does this tie in with Forth?  Is there a parallel in the
>> dilemma of outnumbered indigenous peoples whether to try to stand
>> alone (and possibly die out) or integrate (and possibly be lost in the
>> crowd), and the position of Forth?
>
>Probably that is the message. Hopefully, the indians of the Forth and Lisp
>tribes do not get wiped out this time around.


(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Ken Deboy
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B24564.9F3C6F6D@alternavision.com>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:

> Perhaps it is convenient for Americans to call their European brothers for
> help when shouldering the burden of their not so heroic parts of history.

 Actually, our English, French, and Spanish "brothers" seemed to have done
everything they could to make us their servants (err.. respective colonies).
After (and even before) the US became a "super power," our European
"brothers" keep getting into these incredibly stupid wars and then expecting
the US to bail them out - all the while bitching about how the US is meddling
where it doesn't belong, blaming liberties enjoyed by US citizens for "the
proliferation of guns," etc...

>
> Also, I would like to remind you that the notation "English (Scotts,
> Welsh)" may have gotten you into trouble in the UK as it could be

 If you want to really piss someone off, tell a Dane that they are really
Scandanavian, the same as any German is a Scandanavian..
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1208991600100001@ppp040-max03.twics.com>
>  Actually, our English, French, and Spanish "brothers" seemed to have done
> everything they could to make us their servants (err.. respective colonies).

If you are against colonising other people's land, why did you stay then ?

> our European "brothers" keep getting into these incredibly stupid wars

:-) I like that bit

However, don't forget that it was the US who financed the troublemaker,
who already had a track record of starting two of these incredibly stupid
wars. ;-)

That wasn't very smart either, was it ?

That troublemaker's house bank of then is now the world's richest in
liquid assets, and these days they keep buying US banks.

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Len Zettel
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B2DC46.B3439AFA@orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us>
Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
> 
> >  Actually, our English, French, and Spanish "brothers" seemed to have done
> > everything they could to make us their servants (err.. respective colonies).
> 
> If you are against colonising other people's land, why did you stay then ?
> 
OK, so it's off topic:
There are times when I have toyed with the idea of moving to the Azores, because
it is one of those very rare regions where the present occupants didn't
steal the land from someone else.
   -LenZ-
(snip)
From: Stig E. Sand�
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r51vm.9ot.stig@ara.ii.uib.no>
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:54:13 -0700, Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also, I would like to remind you that the notation "English (Scotts,
>> Welsh)" may have gotten you into trouble in the UK as it could be
>
> If you want to really piss someone off, tell a Dane that they are really
>Scandanavian, the same as any German is a Scandanavian..

Aren't danes scandinavian? I've never heard any of them get 
upset by having their country "grouped" as a scandinavian country? 

The germans to my knowledge are not scandinavian though. Am I missing 
some subtle point here? 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe    Institute of Informatics, University of Bergen
····@ii.uib.no                         http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ouhs5$g41$1@news.campuscwix.net>
Stig E. Sand� <····@ii.uib.no> wrote in message
························@ara.ii.uib.no...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:54:13 -0700, Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, I would like to remind you that the notation "English (Scotts,
> >> Welsh)" may have gotten you into trouble in the UK as it could be
> >
> > If you want to really piss someone off, tell a Dane that they are really
> >Scandanavian, the same as any German is a Scandanavian..
>
> Aren't danes scandinavian? I've never heard any of them get
> upset by having their country "grouped" as a scandinavian country?

I've never heard anyone claim that they weren't Scandinavian. Their language
is certainly Scandinavian (it's my understanding that if you know any one of
Norwegian, Swedish or Danish, you can get along in the other two with only
minor difficulty), and their history is closely intertwined with that of
Norway and Sweden.

> The germans to my knowledge are not scandinavian though. Am I missing
> some subtle point here?

I think that's a joke. IIRC, there's been hard feelings among many Danes
against the Germans for many years. The Prussian seizure of Schleswig (?)
and Holstein from Denmark in 1866 (?) was a real sore point, I think.

Larry
From: Bruce McFarling
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b35680.480016@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:25:41 -0600, "Larry Elmore"
<········@montana.campuscw.net> wrote:

>I've never heard anyone claim that they weren't Scandinavian. Their language
>is certainly Scandinavian (it's my understanding that if you know any one of
>Norwegian, Swedish or Danish, you can get along in the other two with only
>minor difficulty), and their history is closely intertwined with that of
>Norway and Sweden.

	Is Scandanavian a language or a peninsula?  Anyway, some of
Denmark is a peninsula which borders on a bigger country to the south,
but some are islands, and if you wanted to say that some of the
islands are islands of the Scandinavian peninsula, then by himminy, it
would be Scandinavian in the geographic sense.  Also non-Scandinavion,
but anytime you put political borders on top of a geography you get
`in and out' cases like that.
	There's an analogy somewhere in there for Forth, but I'll be
darned if I can express it right now.  I am a native English speaker,
and therefore don't speak any language fluently.

(
----------
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
····@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u74si5fiqj.fsf@ebi.ac.uk>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:54:13 -0700, Ken Deboy <······@alternavision.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Also, I would like to remind you that the notation "English (Scotts,
>>> Welsh)" may have gotten you into trouble in the UK as it could be
>> 
>> If you want to really piss someone off, tell a Dane that they are really
>> Scandanavian, the same as any German is a Scandanavian..

> Aren't danes scandinavian? I've never heard any of them get 
> upset by having their country "grouped" as a scandinavian country? 

I am not sure, you probably meet more Scandinavians than I (although see
below). I have been told that Scandinavia 'proper' is only Norway, Sweden
being called after the Scandes? Scandia? mountain range between the two
countries. But the more common use includes Finland, Denmark, and sometimes
Iceland and F�r�yene (Faeroe Islands) (but what about Svalbard?)

> The germans to my knowledge are not scandinavian though. 

No, that's right, it looked like it was meant in jest. However, I have been
campaigning to get Holland (aka The Netherlands (yes, I'll be flamed for
this, it's like the England/GB distinction)) accepted as belonging to
Scandinavia, or to be considered a 'Nordic' country: culturally, socially and
economically Holland is really quite similar to the other Scandinavian
countries (if a bit small in size, and if a bit large in population). So far,
this campaign hasn't borne fruit.  Ah well,

                                                                      Philip
-- 
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+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
From: Stig E. Sand�
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r56r4.9sr.stig@ara.ii.uib.no>
On 12 Aug 1999 10:31:16 +0100, Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> If you want to really piss someone off, tell a Dane that they are really
>>> Scandanavian, the same as any German is a Scandanavian..
>
>> Aren't danes scandinavian? I've never heard any of them get 
>> upset by having their country "grouped" as a scandinavian country? 
>
>I am not sure, you probably meet more Scandinavians than I (although see
>below). I have been told that Scandinavia 'proper' is only Norway, Sweden
>being called after the Scandes? Scandia? mountain range between the two
>countries. But the more common use includes Finland, Denmark, and sometimes
>Iceland and F�r�yene (Faeroe Islands) (but what about Svalbard?)

If I am not totally wrong and/or been taught the wrong things in school,
the scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. It is often
confused with the term 'Nordic countries' which includes Finland, Iceland and
F�r�yene. The finns however do not share the same language background as
the other nations, despite swedish attempts to teach them.. 

Svalbard is a special area which is part of the Norwegian state,
but I think the russians have some special arrangement about Svalbard as they 
have settlements there. Needless to say it was quite the place during the
cold war.. 

>> The germans to my knowledge are not scandinavian though. 
>
>No, that's right, it looked like it was meant in jest. However, I have been
>campaigning to get Holland (aka The Netherlands (yes, I'll be flamed for
>this, it's like the England/GB distinction)) accepted as belonging to
>Scandinavia, or to be considered a 'Nordic' country: culturally, socially and
>economically Holland is really quite similar to the other Scandinavian
>countries (if a bit small in size, and if a bit large in population). So far,
>this campaign hasn't borne fruit.  Ah well,

I am quite fond of Holland myself but to classify it as a nordic country
would probably be wrong. 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe    Institute of Informatics, University of Bergen
····@ii.uib.no                         http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Stefan Axelsson
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7ouimu$hl2$1@humle.ce.chalmers.se>
In article <···················@ara.ii.uib.no>,
Stig E. Sand� <····@ii.uib.no> wrote:

>If I am not totally wrong and/or been taught the wrong things in school,
>the scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. It is often
>confused with the term 'Nordic countries' which includes Finland, Iceland and
>F�r�yene. The finns however do not share the same language background as
>the other nations, despite swedish attempts to teach them.. 

Well, it's interesting to see that crop up here, it's been a main
course on soc.culture.nordic some years ago. I've included a verbatim
quote from the soc.culture.nordic FAQ below. See:

  http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic 

for the complete FAQ, which contains more than you ever wanted to know
about the history and culture of the north.

>I am quite fond of Holland myself but to classify it as a Nordic country
>would probably be wrong.

There are many similarities, but for the wrong reasons. So no, they do
emphatically not belong with the "Nordic countries," if that term is
to maintain any useful meaning.

And to the original poster, no doubt trying to stir some animosity,
between us Nordic brethren, it really won't work. The aforementioned
FAQ puts it nicely as:

 "The Nordic countries are, in spite of everything, like a family;
  not a One Big Happy Family of Nations, no, just any old family with
  its small quarrels and fights. They just tend to grow out of
  proportion when we have no real problems or crises to fight about.
  There are no great feelings of hatred between the different
  nationalities, few historical traumas, our prejudices about each
  other are pretty harmless, and so forth. We might have some Big
  Brother or Little Brother complexes -- at least we like to accuse
  each other of suffering from them -- but mostly we just like to make
  some noise and get some attention."


Since this discussion really doesn't belong here, I'll confine my
remarks to this posting.

------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1.3 What is "Scandinavia"? 

The word "Scandinavia" presents a bit more difficulty. In Nordic
languages, the meaning is quite clear:

   Skandinavien:
   Sweden, Denmark, Norway (and sometimes Iceland)
   -- the ancient lands of the Norsemen.

The Scandinavian peninsula, on the other hand, is usually simply
understood as comprising Norway and Sweden, despite the unclear border
to the Kola peninsula. The northernmost part of Finland is of course
also situated on the Scandinavian peninsula.

But in English, alas, there seems to be no standard usage. This is
mainly due to the fact that English lacks a simple and clear term for
the five countries, and the word "Scandinavia" tends to be used for
that purpose instead. The term "Nordic countries", in its current
definition, is a rather recent invention, its meaning is still a bit
obscure especially to non-Europeans, it's awkward to use and to some
people it carries unpleasant connotations of the Aryan "Nordic
race". Therefore, you will find that it's quite common to define the
word "Scandinavia" in English like this:

   [Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English]
   SCANDINAVIAN
   1. of the countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland
      in northern Europe, or their people or languages.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon to use the word "Scandinavia" in
its more limited definition. An example:

   [The Concise Oxford Dictionary]
   SCANDINAVIAN
   1. a native or inhabitant of Scandinavia
      (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland).


And some encyclopaedias put it like this:

   [The Random House Encyclopaedia]
   SCANDINAVIA
   1. region of northern Europe consisting of
      the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway and Denmark;
      culturally and historically Finland and Iceland
      are often considered part of this area.


Despite the term being rather clear for the Scandinavians themselves,
disputes remain about how the term would be understood and derived in
English. If the word is understood as a geographic term, how can then
Denmark be included - as most do. If instead it's deduced from the
area where the languages are quite similar North-Germanians, should
Iceland logically be excluded?

At the risk of disturbing some people's sleep, we will use "Nordic"
and "Scandinavian" interchangeably throughout this FAQ, for practical
reasons. You have been warned. :->
------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan,
-- 
Stefan Axelsson                         Chalmers University of Technology
···@rmovt.rply.ce.chalmers.se           Dept. of Computer Engineering
(Remove "rmovt.rply" to send mail.)
From: Timo Tossavainen
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37B2B981.C00A79E5@cs.uta.fi>
"Stig E. Sand�" wrote:

> If I am not totally wrong and/or been taught the wrong things in school,
> the scandinavian countries are Norway, Sweden and Denmark. It is often
> confused with the term 'Nordic countries' which includes Finland, Iceland and
> F�r�yene. The finns however do not share the same language background as
> the other nations, despite swedish attempts to teach them..

Finland is officially a bilingual country; swedish is the other language.
Learning swedish is compulsory and at least one foreign language is also
compulsory, in most cases this is english. BTW, The finnish attempts to teach
swedish usually fail miserably as well; the students (the boys at least) are
usually against it on the grounds that it is compulsory =) The swedish speakers
are the minority, but nevertheless they are doing well. I think Linus Torvalds is
also a swedish speaker. (Not sure of this one though... ) It's quite hard to tell
actually since the swedish speaking minority knows finnish quite well. The
finnish language is from the fenno-ugric group. BTW, <shameless plug>J.R.R.
Tolkien considered it one of the most beatiful languages and based the language
of elves on it.</shameless plug>

Could we now get back on topic, plz ? If one measures the usage of a programming
language by newsgroup activity then c.l.l has been extremely active lately. Is
someone trolling or what ? =)

To answer the question: Is Lisp dying ? I started learning it after I got fed up
with the static nature of C++.  I ran into problems trying to implement dynamic
programs and gave up once I realized the sheer amount of code to get easy
run-time extendibility and reconfigurability. I code for pleasure, mostly, and
sometimes for research, so this is a valid point in my case. I've found CL quite
a good language so far and I think other open-minded people will find it as well.
Advocacy and information sharing doesn't hurt either, this what the most popular
languages do. Think of the hype surrounding the newest industry standard
languages like C++ and Java (and the usual brainwashing to promote static
languages...)

Timo
From: Stig E. Sand�
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r5gqn.a1t.stig@ara.ii.uib.no>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:09:37 +0300, Timo Tossavainen <··@cs.uta.fi> wrote:
[snip section about nordic languages]

>Could we now get back on topic, plz ? If one measures the usage of a programming
>language by newsgroup activity then c.l.l has been extremely active lately. Is
>someone trolling or what ? =)

I think everyone just got carried away..

>To answer the question: Is Lisp dying ? I started learning it after I got fed up
>with the static nature of C++.  I ran into problems trying to implement dynamic
>programs and gave up once I realized the sheer amount of code to get easy
>run-time extendibility and reconfigurability.

I have basically the same experience with C and C++ and at some point I
realized that at times more than half my code was basically written to
get more dynamic behaviour and frustration of the huge amount of work
needed to do it right (memory-allocation, dynamic loading, ..). I then saw
Java as solving some of the problems but it was also caught by the fascist
typing-scheme and lacked even the braindead cpp. And somehow I managed to
find CL and I am more and more pleased with the language every day
(naturally there are a few points I want different, but compared to above
mentioned languages, the list is very short). I think people (mostly of
past experience with C/C++?) find the way to Lisp every day but it doesn't
make headlines in the glossy computer magazines..  

> I code for pleasure, mostly, and
>sometimes for research, so this is a valid point in my case. I've found CL quite
>a good language so far and I think other open-minded people will find it as well.
>Advocacy and information sharing doesn't hurt either, this what the most popular
>languages do. Think of the hype surrounding the newest industry standard
>languages like C++ and Java (and the usual brainwashing to promote static
>languages...)

Maybe Gabriel was too right with "Worse is Better"..  Maybe in ten or
twenty years time one approaches CL's quality in a popular language.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe    Institute of Informatics, University of Bergen
····@ii.uib.no                         http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <gat-1208991551210001@milo.jpl.nasa.gov>
In article <···················@ara.ii.uib.no>, ····@ii.uib.no (Stig E.
Sand�) wrote:

> (naturally there are a few points I want different, but compared to above
> mentioned languages, the list is very short).

One of the nice features of Lisp is that it's very easy to change
the language to suit your individual taste through macros and read
macros.  What changes would you like to see?  They might be very
easy to implement yourself.

Erann Gat
···@jpl.nasa.gov
From: Stig E. Sand�
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7r7hd0.avf.stig@ara.ii.uib.no>
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:51:21 -0700, Erann Gat <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <···················@ara.ii.uib.no>, ····@ii.uib.no (Stig E.
>Sand�) wrote:
>
>> (naturally there are a few points I want different, but compared to above
>> mentioned languages, the list is very short).
>
>One of the nice features of Lisp is that it's very easy to change
>the language to suit your individual taste through macros and read
>macros.  What changes would you like to see?  They might be very
>easy to implement yourself.

Nothing major that can't be solved by macros I guess, but it'd be nice 
to have the streams CLOSified. As for implemented, at least a few CL impl. 
support Gray threads so I am not too frustrated about it :) 

(Very short list I remember this morning, must be a good sign :)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe    Institute of Informatics, University of Bergen
····@ii.uib.no                         http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <37b79809.267796691@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:54:13 -0700, Ken Deboy
<······@alternavision.com> wrote:

>Actually, our English, French, and Spanish "brothers" seemed
>to have done everything they could to make us their servants
>(err.. respective colonies).

Well, *my* ancestors didn't leave Spain to go make servants out of
anyone. And yours? Or are you Native American?

>After (and even before) the US became a "super power," our
>European "brothers" keep getting into these incredibly stupid wars

That's really funny. You mean, as opposed to these incredibly
intelligent wars the USA is always getting into, uh? Though lately
they seem to have learnt a lesson and they only put their fingers in
wars they *can* win... and, of course and as ever, babbling about
"humanitarian" issues while protecting their economic interests in the
Third World. Logical, if somewhat hypocritical.

>blaming liberties enjoyed by US citizens for "the proliferation of
>guns," etc...

So, are you happy that events like yesterday's shooting do happen?

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7KLDP4C0a0jUw5YEQKUegCePvTl82EcpbBSQY3QgyB5LIlz19QAoMN7
0OWtfAmoMqU64za9RaJUq5WX
=GKe7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <3143442343843543@naggum.no>
* Juanma Barranquero -> Ken Deboy
| So, are you happy that events like yesterday's shooting do happen?

  are you happy that you have asked this question in a public forum so
  everyone can judge your character, Juanma Barranquero?

#:Erik
-- 
  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <37bec859.280164475@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12 Aug 1999 10:25:43 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:

>  are you happy that you have asked this question in a public
>  forum so everyone can judge your character, Juanma Barranquero?

And what is exactly that character that can be so easily judged by my
question?

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7K6kv4C0a0jUw5YEQKDZgCcCshL72bCzLUk/vOtDuq3Jq44EFQAoPlE
Y3UnxoZYfdGKWM8DaJP1MNo6
=aH9R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <3143458330042407@naggum.no>
* Juanma Barranquero
| And what is exactly that character that can be so easily judged by my
| question?

  that it is possible to you that someone might by happy over the deaths of
  innocent people just because they don't agree with you on something.
  whether real or a rhetorical device, it's unbelievably tasteless.  that's
  what can be learned from your character.  further, that you start to make
  an argument about it rather than immediately regret it and retract it
  says more than enough about your ability to realize what you have said.

#:Erik
-- 
  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <37c0e3bb.287172291@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12 Aug 1999 14:52:10 +0000, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:

>  that it is possible to you that someone might by happy over the
>  deaths of innocent people just because they don't agree with you
>  on something. whether real or a rhetorical device, it's
>  unbelievably tasteless.

Perhaps you're right. OTOH, my question was not motivated for the
disagreement with Ken Deboy. In fact, I don't disagree with him in
that respect; I'm not from the States so I try hard not to moralize
regarding the American use or misuse of weapons. From your point of
view, I'm tasteless because I asked that question. But understand
that, from my POV, *he* was tasteless because he chose a very bad time
to defend the use of weapons, and for purely rethorical reasons (as it
wasn't what he was arguing, but just an off comment thrown into the
discussion for the sake of it).

[A very short story: less than two years ago, two days after a IRA
bomb killed several children, two of them Spanish, someone did make
jokes in the Iain Banks mailing list about killing Spanish children
because they're a pest in Ireland during summer (they go to Ireland in
great quantities to learn English). So perhaps my thinking that
someone could be happy is not that alien an idea.]

>  that's what can be learned from your character.

That's a possible interpretation of my meaning. I think I've made
clearer my position now.

>  further, that you start to make an argument about it rather than
>  immediately regret it and retract it says more than enough about
>  your ability to realize what you have said.

I honestly don't understand how asking for an explanation could be
interpreted as starting an argument.

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7LZ8v4C0a0jUw5YEQIWCQCeOIxuV77MvV3VMRQdznoCcY7vE4UAniws
YgFJzoTOToQbV/pyy+hq6d6e
=NZ7U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Benjamin Kowarsch
Subject: Re: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <nospam-orawnzva-1408991420220001@ppp048-max03.twics.com>
> | And what is exactly that character that can be so easily judged by my
> | question?
> 
>   that it is possible to you that someone might by happy over the deaths of
>   innocent people just because they don't agree with you on something.
>   whether real or a rhetorical device, it's unbelievably tasteless.  that's
>   what can be learned from your character.  further, that you start to make
>   an argument about it rather than immediately regret it and retract it
>   says more than enough about your ability to realize what you have said.

Guys, please don't start a fight over this. It would be a sad outcome for
an overall civilised and interesting discussion.

It is quite understandable that the dicussion on gun control is very emotional.

On the one side you have the people who cannot understand, that it is so
easy for psychos to obtain dangerous weaponry, while innocent people,
often children get killed. It is understandable that these people would
like to see it made more difficult to obtain such weapons.

On the other side you have the people who possess such weapons. They feel
accused by the suggestion to control these weapons while they themselves
have always handled them responsibly. It is understandable that these
people would like to not get confused for potential psychos.

As a result the matter has become very emotional and less rational. Not
very helpful, but understandable. However, it doesn't help to start a
fight over it.

It is also understandable, that Juanma responded in a sarcastic way to a
sarcastic comment. Anyway, please try to be friends again.

NB: Has anyone ever thought about "gun & murder control" on television ?
What about a campaign to collect all violent video cassettes along with
war toys, pile them and crush them in a large media spectacle ? Would that
be considered an attempt to limit the rights of the free press ? That
would be odd - when it comes to display of pornography to minors
viewpoints are less "free press".

-- 
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: OFFTOPIC: History
Date: 
Message-ID: <37be2570.7038150@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 14:20:22 +0900, ···············@xntv.pbz (Benjamin
Kowarsch) wrote:

>It is also understandable, that Juanma responded in a sarcastic
>way to a sarcastic comment.

You are right. I was too sarcastic, so I apologize to Ken Debois on
that issue.

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN7kXtf4C0a0jUw5YEQJ+sgCgypJFs/uwkvbl0bk1NwCoAHPPxMcAnj8/
kQzXZl0T3e9IcmqvKiXC/44t
=6uAQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: ······@cwcom.net
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <zMmn3.32$Zp.1646@news.mcmail.com>
On 1999-07-25 ···@node2.unix.Virginia.EDU(JulianV.Noble) said:
   :There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the
   :mis- treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the
   :Indians killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.

No. The Indians had a bloody good go at stopping themselves from being
invaded; sheer force of numbers and an unprepared immune system may not
have helped, but the fact is that white men stole their land.

How hard would *you* fight an invading force?
--
the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
From: William Tanksley
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7ps488.vg7.wtanksle@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:21:19 GMT, ······@cwcom.net wrote:

>On 1999-07-25 ···@node2.unix.Virginia.EDU(JulianV.Noble) said:
>   :There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the
>   :mis- treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the
>   :Indians killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.

>No. The Indians had a bloody good go at stopping themselves from being
>invaded; sheer force of numbers and an unprepared immune system may not
>have helped, but the fact is that white men stole their land.

The fact is that by and large white men settled in their land.  Some
tribes couldn't stand the newness, and lashed out.  The Europeans couldn't
tell the difference between those tribes and the others, and they fought
them all.

Often unjustly and unfairly.  Some worse than others -- this doesn't even
start to describe the Spanish conquest of the New World.

>How hard would *you* fight an invading force?

Right now, I use a thing called 'customs' or 'immigration laws'.  It's
crude, but it works better than attacking immagrants right out.

>the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself

This line (your signature), BTW, ends with a ^M.  It's the only line in
your message to do so.  The standards allow any sort of linebreaks, but
they assume that all the linebreaks are the same in one message.

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley
From: Samuel A. Falvo II
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7ps94f.vpf.kc5tja@dolphin.openprojects.net>
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:05:29 GMT, William Tanksley <········@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
>>the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
>
>This line (your signature), BTW, ends with a ^M.  It's the only line in
>your message to do so.  The standards allow any sort of linebreaks, but
>they assume that all the linebreaks are the same in one message.

No, his entire *MESSAGE* ends with ^M characters, which throws SLRN for a
complete loop.  I am wholly incapable of responding to his messages because
of it.

I discovered this when I got curious one day, and decided to use VI for my
editor instead of JED (VI is much more ... "open", shall we say, about
control codes than JED is).  I was utterly appaulled(sp?) at what I had just
seen.

It seems that his news service tacks on an additional carriage return in his
messages: ^M^M^J, instead of ^M^J.

Also, the Usenet standards are quite specific about line terminations: ^M^J
-only-, which is the same as SMTP, SNMP, and others.

==========================================================================
      KC5TJA/6     |                  -| TEAM DOLPHIN |-
        DM13       |                  Samuel A. Falvo II
    QRP-L #1447    |          http://www.dolphin.openprojects.net
   Oceanside, CA   |......................................................
From: Stan Barr
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn7ptir5.kfq.stanb@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:28:48 GMT, 
Samuel A. Falvo II <······@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:05:29 GMT, 
William Tanksley <········@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
>>
>>This line (your signature), BTW, ends with a ^M.  It's the only line in
>>your message to do so.  The standards allow any sort of linebreaks, but
>>they assume that all the linebreaks are the same in one message.
>
>No, his entire *MESSAGE* ends with ^M characters, which throws SLRN for a
>complete loop.  I am wholly incapable of responding to his messages because
>of it.
>

It's OK here..... SLRN 0.9.4.3, Linux, Pentiom 166
The only ^M is in the sig.

-- 
Cheers,
Stan Barr  ·····@dial.pipex.com

The future was never like this!
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7noc1c$3kv$1@news.campuscwix.net>
William Tanksley <········@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote in message
····························@dolphin.openprojects.net...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:21:19 GMT, ······@cwcom.net wrote:
>
> >On 1999-07-25 ···@node2.unix.Virginia.EDU(JulianV.Noble) said:
> >   :There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the
> >   :mis- treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans. Actually, the
> >   :Indians killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.
>
> >No. The Indians had a bloody good go at stopping themselves from being
> >invaded; sheer force of numbers and an unprepared immune system may not
> >have helped, but the fact is that white men stole their land.
>
> The fact is that by and large white men settled in their land.  Some
> tribes couldn't stand the newness, and lashed out.

"Couldn't stand the newness?" They were being invaded and chased off their
own lands!

> The Europeans couldn't
> tell the difference between those tribes and the others, and they fought
> them all.

Not hardly. The Europeans were masters at playing tribes off one against
another, first allying with one, then another, until they had defeated all
of them. Very often, the tribes that collaborated the most were in the end
treated the worst (like the Cherokee).

> Often unjustly and unfairly.  Some worse than others -- this doesn't even
> start to describe the Spanish conquest of the New World.

That was bad, alright, but read about some of the events of 1636 and 1676 --
the English could be and were every bit as bloodthirsty and merciless as the
Spaniards. In one respect, one could even argue that the Spanish treated
Indians better than the English because after the first few incredibly
bloody years and decades, the Spanish became alarmed at the precipitous
decline in the Indian population and the government tried to take measures
to reverse the trend. After all, if the Indians all died, who would do all
the work? In New England, though there was some slavery up through the
Revolution, the Protestant work ethic had a different effect. The settlers
would do their own work and most felt that the quicker all the Indians died
off, the better.

> >How hard would *you* fight an invading force?
>
> Right now, I use a thing called 'customs' or 'immigration laws'.  It's
> crude, but it works better than attacking immagrants right out.

Immigrants are coming to _join_ this country, not invade it and take our
property by force despite historical fears of the "Yellow Peril," for
example.  Mexico is not aggressively seeking Lebensraum at our expense, nor
does their government have a doctrine of Manifest Destiny (of Hispanic
control of North America).

Larry
From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <379fc128.5691523@news.mad.ttd.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:05:29 GMT, ········@dolphin.openprojects.net
(William Tanksley) wrote:

>Often unjustly and unfairly.  Some worse than others -- this doesn't
>even start to describe the Spanish conquest of the New World.

<TERRIBLY OFF-TOPIC>

The "Spanish conquest of the New World" isn't something to be proud
of, sure, but...

...on the other hand, few south- and center-american social groups
(tribes, empires, whatever) were fully exterminated, and all along
Latin America the current population is a mix of Spanish settlers and
native inhabitants (and also african slaves, of course). I'd say Latin
America's conquest was a lot less bloody and genocidal that North
America's one... For example, after Mexico's conquest, the mexica and
tlaxcalteca high dignataries received honors and became Spanish
nobles. I don't know that much U.S. history, but I don't think there
were many indian chiefs becoming rich or getting accepted in high
society (maybe I'm wrong).

Yes, there were atrocities also: no one knows for sure, for example,
why Cort�s choose to hang Cuauhtemoc Tzin. And Alvarado was a bloody
maniac. But in the U.S. the settlers were, apparently, decided to
exterminate the natives and take the land, while in Latin America the
Spaniards wanted to use the population as slaves (and take the land,
human motives often aren't very original). We can discuss now what
method was better for the survival of the original* inhabitants... :)

There's a persistent "black legend" about Spain, from the Conquest to
the Inquisition. Witness _PAVANE_, a very interesting SF (or maybe
fantasy) novel by Keith Roberts where the victory of the Spanish
"Armada Invencible" leads to technological and cultural decline in XX
century...

                                                       /L/e/k/t/u


*For some definition of "original", of course. The mexicas were for
just about 200 years in the valley of Mexico, and in that time they
made enemies of all tribes in the neighborhood.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN569tv4C0a0jUw5YEQIvEwCdEzGRqDRyhsh56wNq8o0Ch7AUcFIAoM0j
jnY2Y6RL1t9jZWd2E8rJPOXR
=tUMM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: ······@cwcom.net
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <Yg1o3.429$Zp.25067@news.mcmail.com>
On 1999-07-27 ········@dolphin.openprojects.net said:
   :>How hard would *you* fight an invading force?

   :Right now, I use a thing called 'customs' or 'immigration laws'.
   :It's crude, but it works better than attacking immagrants right out.

Hmm. This is when I realised I'd touched a raw nerve. Sorry if telling
you that your country has immoral beginnings causes you a problem; it's
not something I imagine people taking personally.

There *is*, however, a qualitative difference between migration and
invasion. Just ask the Polish, or the Czechs, or... most of Europe. (Or
most of Britain's former colonies, for that matter. Certainly the
Canadians seem to think so.)

   :>the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself

   :This line (your signature), BTW, ends with a ^M.  It's the only
   :line in your message to do so.  The standards allow any sort of
   :linebreaks, but they assume that all the linebreaks are the same in
   :one message.

Again, I'm sorry if my decision to use DOS-based software to access
USEnet causes you a problem, but there's not a vast amount I can do
about it.
--
the desk lisard     communa     time's taught the killing game herself
From: Larry Elmore
Subject: Re: Is LISP dying?
Date: 
Message-ID: <7nob1a$33o$1@news.campuscwix.net>
Julian V. Noble <···@node2.unix.Virginia.EDU> wrote in message
·················@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
>
> If you hadn't posted the correction, I would have. The Declaration
> of Independence, one of the two foundation documents of the American
> experiment, refers neither to race nor--given the vagaries of
> the English language--to sex.

Jefferson wrote better than he knew...

> The original US Constitution, to its disgrace, considers "persons born
> in a condition of servitude" (I think that is how it is phrased--I
> don't have my copy nearby) equal to 3/5 of free persons for the purpose
> of proportional representation in the House of Representatives. But it
> also makes no reference to race.

By the time Washington left the presidency, he was surprisingly anti-slavery
and considered the abolishment of the "Peculiar Institution" to be the one
great unfinished work of the Revolution, and likely to be increasingly
divisive, up to and including civil war.

> There are many myths, originating with J.-J. Rousseau, about the mis-
> treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans.

It's not the treatment of the Indians at the hands of European invaders
that's a myth, it was the idea of the "Noble Savage" that was mythical.
Colonial treatment of Indians ranged from amicable trade and peace to the
most barbaric savagery imaginable.

> Actually, the Indians
> killed at least 10 for 1 in attacks on settlers.

And settlers killed ~100 for 1 in attacks on Indians....

> Most loss of Indian
> population took place through disease, not warfare.

Very true.

>That was certainly
> unfortunate, to say the least, but it is easy to forget that smallpox,
> diphtheria, chicken pox and whooping cough--not to mention cholera,
> typhus and typhoid fever--killed lots of Europeans in America. Medicine
> just wasn't very good at that time, and the mortality rates for Euros
> (from those diseases) stood at close to 50%.

But the death toll was significantly higher for the Indians, as nearly all
early colonial accounts relate (often in glee at how "God's hand" removed
their enemies and left the land for them). Of course, sexually transmitted
diseases (causing sterility) and alcohol also played significant roles.

> The main reason the Euro-
> peans dominated the Americas had to do with their agricultural lifestyle.
> Agriculture permits much higher population densities than hunting.

The Indians of the East Coast, and the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys
were _primarily_ farmers, too. What they practiced would be more properly
called horticulture rather than agriculture, but they lived in settled towns
with extensive fields and orchards. It's very likely that the Indian
population had _already_ declined by ~90% by 1600 AD.

Military technology played an important role, too.

Larry