http://bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/
I have managed to lure a Symbolics virtual machine to print
its internal documentation to a Cups pdf virtual printer,
with very good (= non-virtual) results.
Type: documentation (previously unavailable on the net)
Date: circa 1990 (1989-1993)
Format: First quality (not scanned) PDF
Sizes:
Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Concepts.pdf 1'4MB
Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Programming_Constructs.pdf 1'3MB
Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Dictionary.pdf 2'3MB
On Jan 2, 11:55 am, ·······@eurogaran.com wrote:
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/
>
> I have managed to lure a Symbolics virtual machine to print
> its internal documentation to a Cups pdf virtual printer,
> with very good (= non-virtual) results.
>
> Type: documentation (previously unavailable on the net)
> Date: circa 1990 (1989-1993)
> Format: First quality (not scanned) PDF
> Sizes:
> Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Concepts.pdf 1'4MB
> Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Programming_Constructs.pdf 1'3MB
> Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Dictionary.pdf 2'3MB
The very first article in the Dictionary claims that '=' is the
Common
Lisp equivalent of '$B!b(B'. Note that '/=' does not match the
definition, either. The Symbolics function distinguishes the
first value from the other values in the list while the Common Lisp
functions give the same result regardless of order.
--S
> The very first article in the Dictionary claims that '=' is the
> Common Lisp equivalent of '$B!b(B'.
It was also for me the first thing to notice when I read it.
Looks like an obvious erratum.
I could have corrected it, but fidelity was preferred.
> Note that '/=' does not match the
> definition, either. The Symbolics function distinguishes the
> first value from the other values in the list while the Common Lisp
> functions give the same result regardless of order.
> --S
In fact, though, it turns out they do behave identically, yielding NIL
if whatever two numbers in the form are the same, and T otherwise (no
two numbers coincide), so for instance both ($B!b(B 2 3 3) and (/= 2 3 3)
return NIL inspite what the document says.
On Jan 2, 2:01 pm, ·······@eurogaran.com wrote:
> > The very first article in the Dictionary claims that '=' is the
> > Common Lisp equivalent of '$B!b(B'.
>
> It was also for me the first thing to notice when I read it.
> Looks like an obvious erratum.
> I could have corrected it, but fidelity was preferred.
>
> > Note that '/=' does not match the
> > definition, either. The Symbolics function distinguishes the
> > first value from the other values in the list while the Common Lisp
> > functions give the same result regardless of order.
> > --S
>
> In fact, though, it turns out they do behave identically, yielding NIL
> if whatever two numbers in the form are the same, and T otherwise (no
> two numbers coincide), so for instance both ($B!b(B 2 3 3) and (/= 2 3 3)
> return NIL inspite what the document says.
No wonder Symbolics failed.
On Jan 2, 8:55 am, ·······@eurogaran.com wrote:
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/
>
> I have managed to lure a Symbolics virtual machine to print
> its internal documentation to a Cups pdf virtual printer,
> with very good (= non-virtual) results.
Cool! Thanks for posting!!
-- Scott
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Symbolics Common Lisp documentation set
Date:
Message-ID: <uodc3kl7g.fsf@nhplace.com>
·······@eurogaran.com writes:
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/
>
> I have managed to lure a Symbolics virtual machine to print
> its internal documentation to a Cups pdf virtual printer,
> with very good (= non-virtual) results.
>
> Type: documentation (previously unavailable on the net)
> Date: circa 1990 (1989-1993)
> Format: First quality (not scanned) PDF
> Sizes:
> Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Concepts.pdf 1'4MB
> Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Programming_Constructs.pdf 1'3MB
> Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Dictionary.pdf 2'3MB
I'm not doubting the usefulness of this. However, at the risk of
opening a big can of worms...
Do you have the intellectual property rights permitting you to do this?
I ask because just because something has become unavailable does not
imply that it is the right of people other than its owner or author to
make it available for sale. The lack of any apparent page associated
with these documents saying who owns them and what the pedigree of
permissions is that led to their publication is disturbing to me.
As I understand it, these documents are copyrighted materials that
were once the assets of Symbolics, and presumably have been sold to
cover debts of that company, creating a chain of ownership custody.
Even if not the owner is not apparent, they surely have an owner;
modern copyright law does not require notice of ownership, nor of
transfer of ownership. So presumably, absent an expiration of
copyright term, an express license, or an express transfer to the
public domain, there is always someone with the right to withhold or
approve their having been offered. (Not that I'm a lawyer, I feel
compelled to note. But that's my "casual" understanding based on this
and that reading I've done on the matter.)
Although I think the bitsavers site is a cool concept, I'm HIGHLY
disappointed that they make no statement about intellectual property
matters on their web site, since surely those issues are critical.
The mere fact of documents having published in one medium does not
imply an authorization to publish in another medium; that's why
there's a writer's strike going on in the US television market right
now. Moreover, the mere fact that bitsavers is calling for people to
put documents up is not the same as bitsavers having the right to
authorize people to do it, and their lack of guidance to contributors
in this regard appears to my (non-lawyerly) eye as something that is
promoting a situation of some non-trivial personal legal risk for
their contributors. I'm frankly also surprised they have not
insulated themselves with some form of disclaimer in this regard.
And please understand that I am STRONGLY concerned with the potential
losses of these and other materials to history, so it pains me to
suggest that it might not be appropriate for them to be up on the web.
I'd MUCH rather they would be available. But ONLY on proper terms.
I am equally concerned with the potential for a generic loss of
intellectual property rights, which even though commonly associated
with big entities (like Microsoft and RIAA and other commonly
daemonized large "faceless" corporations) is nevertheless still one of
the only tools allowing any kind of protection whatsoever for the
"little guy" who seeks to have any kind of control whatsoever against
large corporations who farm the net and offer anything and everything
they find for free, taking what revenue they can and yielding none of
it back to the owner.
I sadly expect some to be annoyed at my posting this, since I know
that the popular view of many is that copyright laws are just things
in the way of things people want (music, software, etc). Relevant
quote, from A Man for All Seasons:
More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to
get after the devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you,
where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This
country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's
laws not God's, and if you cut them down--and you're just the man
to do it--do you really think that you could stand upright in
the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own
safety's sake.
Having recently published the Revised Maclisp Manual after a long struggle
(see the history page at http://www.maclisp.info/pitmanual/history.html ),
and having seen donation revenues roll in that at rates that only
recently topped out of the 2 digit numbers of dollars after years of
work, I have strong empathy for whoever might have the intellectual
property rights to these Symbolics documents. Their economic value
may well be small. And yet, whoever owns them surely paid real cash
money for them, and might want to reserve the right to publishing them
themselves under whatever terms they choose for whatever reasons of
economics and/or personal dignity they choose.
Moreover, while I'm a big fan of the simple notion of copyright
protection, that's not to say I'm a fan of many aspects of the DMCA
and other recent details of copyright law, which give copyright
holders and governments quite strong rights to pursue infringers and
to make the infringer pay the court cost for doing so. I note that
some of these documents you've published even contain copyright
notices still affixed, not that such notice is required, and it's
POSSIBLE that some of these documents are registered with the
US Copyright office and hence subject to statutory damages--I don't
have any way of personally verifying that. But if you don't know
the significance of that issue and are not the owner of the
intellectual property or duly authorized, you might might want to
investigate that just for your own personal protection.
So back to the original question: Hopefully this is something for
which permissions were duly obtained and it's just an administrative
oversight that the information about that is not published. But I
feel compelled to ask nevertheless, since the announcement seems to
suggest that the barrier to publication was simply technological and
not otherwise.
Sorry for rambling on. I just don't know for sure in advance that
I'll have a lot of time to pursue this discussion on a post-by-post
basis and wanted to get my basic concerns onto the record.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> ·······@eurogaran.com writes:
>
>
>>http://bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/
>>
>>I have managed to lure a Symbolics virtual machine to print
>>its internal documentation to a Cups pdf virtual printer,
>>with very good (= non-virtual) results.
>>
>>Type: documentation (previously unavailable on the net)
>>Date: circa 1990 (1989-1993)
>>Format: First quality (not scanned) PDF
>>Sizes:
>>Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Concepts.pdf 1'4MB
>>Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Programming_Constructs.pdf 1'3MB
>>Symbolics_Common_Lisp_Language_Dictionary.pdf 2'3MB
>
>
> I'm not doubting the usefulness of this. However, at the risk of
> opening a big can of worms...
>
> Do you have the intellectual property rights permitting you to do this?
word. kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Symbolics Common Lisp documentation set
Date:
Message-ID: <uzlvl8uxx.fsf@nhplace.com>
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > Do you have the intellectual property rights permitting you to do
> > this?
>
> word. kt
huh? kp
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>>
>> > Do you have the intellectual property rights permitting you to do
>> > this?
>>
>> word. kt
>
> huh? kp
"Word" is or was American slang for (roughly and in this context) "I
agree with what you are saying". Featured in terrible American music
and television shows from last century, anyway:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Word
I haven't encountered it for a long time, and in usage other than
sarcastic* for a much longer time. Of course, I'm in Ireland, not
America, Kenny may not have been aiming for sarcasm.
* "I might agree with what you're saying... if I were some dumb yank
and/or if it was still the late 1980s"
[funny enough, that sarcastic usage isn't too far off what my response
would be, but chances of Kenny agreeing with me are probably slim,
hence I suspect Kenny wasn't being sarcastic]