alex goldman wrote:
> Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
he does answwer emails, esp one-liners such as this.
but i am thinking you must not have looked at one of the early
acknowledgment pages.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> alex goldman wrote:
>> Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
>
> he does answwer emails, esp one-liners such as this.
>
> but i am thinking you must not have looked at one of the early
> acknowledgment pages.
>
> kt
>
I have no plans to buy the book (would never read something like that), but
the picture on the web site was cute, with no acknowledgements though.
alex goldman wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>
>>alex goldman wrote:
>>
>>>Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
>>
>>he does answwer emails, esp one-liners such as this.
>>
>>but i am thinking you must not have looked at one of the early
>>acknowledgment pages.
>>
>>kt
>>
>
>
> I have no plans to buy the book (would never read something like that), but
> the picture on the web site was cute, with no acknowledgements though.
i am confused. you say "no acknowledgements (sic)", but that you are too
good to read something like that. how the fuck do you know there are no
acknowledgements if you have not bought the book?
as for you "would never read something like that, but...". sorry, big
boy. you just read it. the cover alone was fascinating enough to you
that you went to a newsgroup to ask from where it came. and that was
nothing more than Graham's /selection/ of someone else's work as a
cover. Can you imagine how much you would enjoy reading a page of his
thoughts? Probably not.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> alex goldman wrote:
>
>> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>alex goldman wrote:
>>>
>>>>Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
>>>
>>>he does answwer emails, esp one-liners such as this.
>>>
>>>but i am thinking you must not have looked at one of the early
>>>acknowledgment pages.
>>>
>>>kt
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have no plans to buy the book (would never read something like that),
>> but the picture on the web site was cute, with no acknowledgements
>> though.
>
> i am confused. you say "no acknowledgements (sic)", but that you are too
> good to read something like that. how the fuck do you know there are no
> acknowledgements if you have not bought the book?
"web site"
> as for you "would never read something like that, but...". sorry, big
> boy. you just read it. the cover alone was fascinating enough to you
> that you went to a newsgroup to ask from where it came. and that was
> nothing more than Graham's /selection/ of someone else's work as a
> cover. Can you imagine how much you would enjoy reading a page of his
> thoughts? Probably not.
I read one of his books. Can you imagine that? Probably not. The article,
however, did not inspire me to want to read the book. We still live in a
country where we are free not to buy books that we don't want to read. Can
you imagine that? Probably not. In conclusion, what the hell is wrong with
you? Why are you being insulting?
alex goldman wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>
>>alex goldman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>alex goldman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
>>>>
>>>>he does answwer emails, esp one-liners such as this.
>>>>
>>>>but i am thinking you must not have looked at one of the early
>>>>acknowledgment pages.
>>>>
>>>>kt
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no plans to buy the book (would never read something like that),
>>>but the picture on the web site was cute, with no acknowledgements
>>>though.
>>
>>i am confused. you say "no acknowledgements (sic)", but that you are too
>>good to read something like that. how the fuck do you know there are no
>>acknowledgements if you have not bought the book?
>
>
> "web site"
oh, cool, the book is on-line already? got a link? I can't find it.
>
>
>>as for you "would never read something like that, but...". sorry, big
>>boy. you just read it. the cover alone was fascinating enough to you
>>that you went to a newsgroup to ask from where it came. and that was
>>nothing more than Graham's /selection/ of someone else's work as a
>>cover. Can you imagine how much you would enjoy reading a page of his
>>thoughts? Probably not.
>
>
> I read one of his books. Can you imagine that? Probably not.
Find your own putdown, I got a copyright on that one.
> The article,
> however, did not inspire me to want to read the book. We still live in a
> country where we are free not to buy books that we don't want to read. Can
> you imagine that? Probably not. In conclusion, what the hell is wrong with
> you?
Hey, I am just flaming you. That does not make me a bad person.
> Why are you being insulting?
Oh, please. You are being flamed, not insulted. Why am I flaming you?
Your "no acknowledgment" was unjust, and your "would not read a book
like that" was gratuitous. And this NG is way too peaceful these days.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>> "web site"
>
> oh, cool, the book is on-line already? got a link? I can't find it.
I'll try to explain using short sentences that you can probably understand.
The picture of the cover is on Graham's web site.
The cover contains the painting being discussed.
There is no note on the web site acknowledging the author of the painting.
I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.
You are an insulting bully. Get help.
alex goldman wrote:
> I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.
Since one of the subjects of the book is lisp, what are you doing
in this newsgroup?
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> alex goldman wrote:
>
>> I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.
>
> Since one of the subjects of the book is lisp, what are you doing
> in this newsgroup?
Talking about Paul Graham's art, apparently.
Actually, I think he is usually a decent writer, not as witty as Norvig for
my taste, though. I thought his essays about Lisp, U.S. presidential
elections, "what you can't say" and some others were insightful, while "why
nerds are unpopular" and "hackers and painters" were junk. I therefore used
induction to conclude that I would not enjoy anything written by Graham on
the subject of "nerd psychology" in the "self-congratulatory rant" genre.
Some curious Amazon.com reviews:
-
PG is an iconoclast/dissident, not unlike Noam Chomsky. His writing,
however, is possessed with sweeping generalizations like "Zealots, whatever
their cause, invariably lack a sense of humor. They can't reply in kind to
jokes." Uh yeah, Paul, just keep thinking that. The existence of PG's book
is a modern fable: it is easier to get published than it is to think and
write clearly.
-
If i wanted biased rants on common knowledge topics i could have spoken to
my local bar man for the price of a pint, and might have even gotten a joke
for free.
-
I started worrying about the book while reading the very first chapter, "Why
Nerds are Unpopular." This isn't a question I'm interested in, but clearly
it is of interest to Graham. Guess what: he was an unpopular nerd, and now
that he has the floor, it's his chance to get back. The reflections in this
chapter bear a remarkable similarity to the fantasies of Rupert Pupkin in
the film "The King of Comedy."
It appears "I don't like some of what Graham writes" is one of the things
You Can't Say here.
alex goldman wrote:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
>
>>alex goldman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.
>>
>>Since one of the subjects of the book is lisp, what are you doing
>>in this newsgroup?
>
>
> Talking about Paul Graham's art, apparently.
Again, since you have professed to have little interest
in the subject of this newsgroup, lisp, why are you here
at all? If the answer is 'conducting an off-topic flamewar',
I suggest you take it to alt.flame.we.dont.give.a.f*ck.
Thanks!
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>>> alex goldman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.
>>>
> Again, since you have professed to have little interest
> in the subject of this newsgroup, lisp, why are you here
> at all? If the answer is 'conducting an off-topic flamewar',
> I suggest you take it to alt.flame.we.dont.give.a.f*ck.
Did I miss the post where Alex claimed to have little interest in Lisp?
Googling his previous activity in this group, it appears that he does,
or at least did, have an interest in the language.
Graham's description of his book doesn't mention Lisp, nor does
Amazon's, and I assumed that his selection of a representation of the
tower of Babel on the front cover was a sly reference to Arc.
Please don't give Alex the impression that c.l.l is inhabited
exclusively by foul-mouthed pinheads who can't even parse English!
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Did I miss the post where Alex claimed to have little interest in Lisp?
He said: 'I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.'
And, correct me if I'm wrong, lisp is among the subjects
discussed in the book.
Paul
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:14:59 -0600, "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> wrote:
> He said: 'I have little interest in the subject matter of the book.'
>
> And, correct me if I'm wrong, lisp is among the subjects discussed
> in the book.
As are Python, Java, Yahoo, Enron, iPods, Japanese swords, American
cars, Leonardo da Vinci, and many other things. So what? The book's
description at www.oreilly.com as well as the one on Graham's own site
both make sure not to mention the "L" word in order not to alienate
possible buyers. I can't see why someone interested in Lisp /must/ be
interested in this book. I certainly don't think reading it is a
requirement to participate in c.l.l.
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> I can't see why someone interested in Lisp /must/ be
> interested in this book. I certainly don't think reading it is a
> requirement to participate in c.l.l.
I never said that. I was merely pointing out that he
stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book
and, therefore, since lisp was part of that subject matter,
we could conclude he was not interested in lisp.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Edi Weitz wrote:
>
>> I can't see why someone interested in Lisp /must/ be
>> interested in this book. I certainly don't think reading it is a
>> requirement to participate in c.l.l.
>
> I never said that. I was merely pointing out that he
> stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book
> and, therefore, since lisp was part of that subject matter,
> we could conclude he was not interested in lisp.
>
> Paul
But Edi Weitz's interpretation of what you said logically follows from
what you did say. You used "logic" to show I'm not supposed to be on
c.l.l., and since first-order logic is one of my interests, here it goes:
You stated
1. Not being interested in Lisp means you must not participate in c.l.l
(<- (not cll) (not (interest lisp)))
2. Being uninterested in something implies being uninterested in all its
parts
(<- (not (interest ?x)) (and (not (interest ?y)) (part-of ?x ?y)))
3. Lisp is part of the subject of the book ("Hackers and Painters")
(<- (part-of lisp (subject book)))
And to tie things up, we add
4. Being interested in something (a book) is equivalent to being interested
in its subject
a. (<- (interest ?x) (interest (subject ?x)))
b. (<- (interest (subject ?x)) (interest ?x))
Using standard FOL inference rules, we conclude: "Someone interested in Lisp
must be interested in this book":
(<- (interest book) (interest lisp))
and assuming people read things (books) they are interested in:
(<- (read ?x) (interest ?x))
"Reading it is a requirement to participate in c.l.l.":
(<- (read book) cll)
So what you "never said" is actually what you said.
Smart/educated humans have a knack for doing these calculations
subconsciously, as I'm sure Dr. Weitz did.
As an exercise, apply contraposition to
(<- (can-do-fol ?x) (smart ?x))
and unify ?x with yourself.
alex goldman schrieb:
> But Edi Weitz's interpretation of what you said logically follows from
> what you did say. You used "logic" to show I'm not supposed to be on
> c.l.l., and since first-order logic is one of my interests, here it goes:
> (<- (not cll) (not (interest lisp)))
> (<- (not (interest ?x)) (and (not (interest ?y)) (part-of ?x ?y)))
> (<- (part-of lisp (subject book)))
> (<- (interest ?x) (interest (subject ?x)))
> (<- (interest (subject ?x)) (interest ?x))
> (<- (interest book) (interest lisp))
> (<- (read ?x) (interest ?x))
> (<- (read book) cll)
> (<- (can-do-fol ?x) (smart ?x))
Wow. Kolosal.
Thats the kind of phraser I looked for (and experimenting with).
stefan
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> writes:
> Edi Weitz wrote:
>
>> I can't see why someone interested in Lisp /must/ be
>> interested in this book. I certainly don't think reading it is a
>> requirement to participate in c.l.l.
>
> I never said that. I was merely pointing out that he
> stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book
> and, therefore, since lisp was part of that subject matter,
> we could conclude he was not interested in lisp.
Paul, that's approximately insane. Where are you hiding the real Paul
Dietz?
Christophe
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> "Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> writes:
>
>
>>Edi Weitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I can't see why someone interested in Lisp /must/ be
>>>interested in this book. I certainly don't think reading it is a
>>>requirement to participate in c.l.l.
>>
>>I never said that. I was merely pointing out that he
>>stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book
>>and, therefore, since lisp was part of that subject matter,
>>we could conclude he was not interested in lisp.
>
>
> Paul, that's approximately insane. Where are you hiding the real Paul
> Dietz?
Shhhhh... this thread is almost dead, let's keep it that way, and I
offer my abject apology for provoking the flamewar component. Nostalgia
is not what it used to be.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
alex goldman wrote:
> Talking about Paul Graham's art, apparently.
...
> Some curious Amazon.com reviews:
...
> It appears "I don't like some of what Graham writes" is one of the things
> You Can't Say here.
Wow. I lectured /you/ on the art of flaming? PWUAAAAHHAHAHAHAAA!!
kt
ps. The /only/ thing I like about what Paul Graham likes is that so many
other people like what he writes that he has caused a renaissance of
Lisp. The second /only/ thing I like is that I no longer have to explain
to suits why I use Lisp, I just have to link them to Paul's writings.
Good, bad, or indifferent, they then know that they are the ones with a
problem. They have missed the boat on something.
Next I send them to Eckel's and Martin's sites where they learn C++ is
dead, mostly because it is not Lisp. Next comes links to Java's Groovy
and Python (dynamic C), etc etc.
k
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
alex goldman wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>>"web site"
>>
>>oh, cool, the book is on-line already? got a link? I can't find it.
>
>
> I'll try to explain using short sentences that you can probably understand.
>
> The picture of the cover is on Graham's web site.
that is a 70x58 pixel thumbnail.
Is this your guide to Usenet?:
Dive in over your head. Find straw. Grasp.
kt
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:18:44 GMT, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> alex goldman wrote:
>
>> The picture of the cover is on Graham's web site.
>
> that is a 70x58 pixel thumbnail.
Did it occur to you that one can click on the thumbnail?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Heya, Kenny!
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
[ SNIPPED AWAY SOME REAL GOOD ARGUMENTING ABOUT REALLY NOTHING ]
>> I read one of his books. Can you imagine that? Probably not.
>
> Find your own putdown, I got a copyright on that one.
>
>> The article,
>> however, did not inspire me to want to read the book. We still live in a
>> country where we are free not to buy books that we don't want to read. Can
>> you imagine that? Probably not. In conclusion, what the hell is wrong with
>> you?
>
> Hey, I am just flaming you. That does not make me a bad person.
>
>> Why are you being insulting?
>
> Oh, please. You are being flamed, not insulted. Why am I flaming you?
> Your "no acknowledgment" was unjust, and your "would not read a book
> like that" was gratuitous. And this NG is way too peaceful these days.
>
> kt
Wow! How we all missed it ;-)) That's almost as good as Erik the Great would
have done it! :-))
Well, the good old times... Some 2 years now that we lost Erik from c.l.l.
and those wonderful flame wars.
Hey, Erik, if you read this: Hope you are doing well - as good as it can be!!
With regards to all on c.l.l.
Frank, currently sweating about a general macro for making every function
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: painters: The good ole flame wars...
Date:
Message-ID: <csh6mj$rlt$1@snic.vub.ac.be>
Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
> Frank, currently sweating about a general macro for making every function
Yeah, such a macro would be cool. ;)
Pascal
Heya, Kenny!
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
[ SNIPPED AWAY SOME REAL GOOD ARGUMENTING ABOUT REALLY NOTHING ]
>> I read one of his books. Can you imagine that? Probably not.
>
> Find your own putdown, I got a copyright on that one.
>
>> The article,
>> however, did not inspire me to want to read the book. We still live in a
>> country where we are free not to buy books that we don't want to read. Can
>> you imagine that? Probably not. In conclusion, what the hell is wrong with
>> you?
>
> Hey, I am just flaming you. That does not make me a bad person.
>
>> Why are you being insulting?
>
> Oh, please. You are being flamed, not insulted. Why am I flaming you?
> Your "no acknowledgment" was unjust, and your "would not read a book
> like that" was gratuitous. And this NG is way too peaceful these days.
>
> kt
Wow! How we all missed it ;-)) That's almost as good as Erik the Great would
have done it! :-))
Well, the good old times... Some 2 years now that we lost Erik from c.l.l.
and those wonderful flame wars.
Hey, Erik, if you read this: Hope you are doing well - as good as it can be!!
With regards to all on c.l.l.
Frank,
currently sweating about a general macro for making every function debuggable
with it tracing the entry, the exit, the source code line (is there a __LINE__
as in the C compiler environments ?), the file name of the source, the times
of entry and exit, the parameters given to the function and all that in
a portable way ... Hell, at least part of this is easy in C and C++, but
I am really struggling with this in the Common Lisp implementations I am
interested in - ACL, OpenMCL, LispWorks... Thanks for reading! Any input/
hints *very* welcome!
Frank Goenninger DG1SBG wrote:
> ...(is there a __LINE__
> as in the C compiler environments ?)...
I once complained to Franz about some AllegroCL compiler error not
telling the line number and they said it was an intractable computation.
Forget the deets. macros and all that, i guess.
fwiw, kt
ps. I guess you cannot fake a flamewar and get a good one, just as
invoking Hitler deliberately to stop one does not count. :) k
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Frank Goenninger DG1SBG <················@t-online.de> writes:
>
> currently sweating about a general macro for making every function debuggable
> with it tracing the entry, the exit, the source code line (is there a __LINE__
> as in the C compiler environments ?), the file name of the source, the times
> of entry and exit, the parameters given to the function and all that in
> a portable way ... Hell, at least part of this is easy in C and C++, but
> I am really struggling with this in the Common Lisp implementations I am
> interested in - ACL, OpenMCL, LispWorks... Thanks for reading! Any input/
> hints *very* welcome!
You can call TRACE on a function to see the function entry and exit;
read the documentation to see what else you can do in that regard.
That's part of the language spec. Particular systems might give you
many additional capabilities.
You don't need the source code file line number, because you can simply
ask the editor to take you directly to the proper line of the proper file,
by function name. Also, if your function has crashed into the interactive
debugger, there's usually a command that will take you to the right source
code from there (so that you don't even need to type the function name).
alex goldman <·····@spamm.er> wrote:
> Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
look at the copyright page in the book. It's The Tower of Babel, by Pieter
Bruegel the Elder:
http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page437.html
--
Frank Bu�, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
alex goldman <·····@spamm.er> wrote:
> Whose painting is it on the cover of Graham's latest book?
BTW: and looks like the painting from the index web page:
http://www.paulgraham.com/
is from Paul Graham himself:
http://www.paulgraham.com/sl.html
really nice drawing (but the shadow of the red apple in foreground looks
wrong). First I thought it was something like the Tower of Babel, painted
by some ancient painter, until I found the description. Whish I could spent
several weeks, too, for drawing a picture :-)
--
Frank Bu�, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de