00:00:14 tusho_: what was that? 00:00:24 SimonRC: it was one of #esoteric's loggers 00:00:30 Then there was one - clog. 00:00:46 lament: anyway, there are a lot of active befunge-related discussions 00:00:50 ais523 keeps coming up with new ideas 00:01:00 and slereah and psygnisfive, um, keep the rest of the time filled 00:01:10 i wouldn't say we're dying 00:01:17 okay 00:01:30 i wouldn't let us die, anyway :P 00:01:41 if I had to be everybody in #esoteric apart from lament I'd do it 00:01:52 wait 00:01:54 couldn't do oklopol 00:01:57 ok everyone but lament and oklopol 00:02:09 what 00:02:16 are you going away, oklament 00:02:41 http://www.esolangs.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges esolang WIKI seems to be dying though 00:03:46 SimonRC: any idea about coollist 00:03:48 I sent them an email 00:03:51 bet it went to /dev/null 00:04:29 * SimonRC didn't look at coollist 00:07:09 tusho_: i think irc on the whole is dying, though 00:07:13 slowly 00:07:21 lament: it's been dying since 1992 00:07:23 stuff like mibbit will keep it alive for a while 00:07:28 sure 00:07:28 lament: however 00:07:30 go into #ubuntu 00:07:31 or #php 00:07:34 and say that irc is dying. 00:07:47 #ubuntu especially. 00:07:47 well, sure, some channels are big and lively. 00:07:55 lament: and they strand off into littler ones. 00:07:58 and thus irc stays alive 00:08:02 besides, it's veryyyyy slowly 00:08:08 maybe irc will be fading out in 10 years time. 00:08:28 well, such technologies never die until the users do 00:08:40 usenet is effectively dead already, yet a bunch of people will use it till they die 00:08:49 same with irc 00:09:01 perhaps moribund is a better term 00:09:19 but lament, people come on to irc quite often 00:09:20 new people 00:09:24 so it refreshes itself 00:09:48 maybe 00:10:06 my experience is highly biased since i don't go outside freenode 00:10:17 nor do i 00:10:18 define "dead" 00:10:33 I am on half-a-dozen lively newsgroups 00:10:45 death can be hard to define :) 00:10:58 well, obsolescence 00:11:02 BBSes are deadder 00:11:08 sure 00:11:24 but some people still use BBSs too 00:11:35 bbs' are certainly dead 00:11:54 * SimonRC feels nostalgic for the days when the internet was a wilderness not a boomin suburb 00:12:21 don't be elitist, SimonRC 00:12:21 :\ 00:12:34 or the days when phreakers from around the wolrd would meet up in a telex machine that the phone exchange had forgotten for a while 00:12:44 tusho_: elitest?! 00:12:49 that was before I was born 00:13:05 SimonRC: yes, but you're saying that the 'new internet' people aren't as good. 00:13:17 no 00:13:24 'tis a tradeoff 00:13:39 its less wild, but it's less wild 00:13:44 SimonRC: i don't think much has changed really 00:14:11 SimonRC: you're just out of the loop :) 00:14:20 SimonRC: consider the phreakers: the phone networks were huge 00:14:32 but only like 20 people in the world knew about that telex machine 00:14:46 dunno, maybe a few hundered, but yeah 00:15:12 this kind of thing happens all the time 00:15:44 hm? 00:15:50 well, I'm not leaving #esoteric any time soon 00:15:54 a ban would do it but that's about it. 00:16:05 And probably only a few people knew about stuff like rms's no password account on an Internet-facing machine. 00:16:06 and I'm certainly not letting it die in the forseeable future 00:16:22 pikhq: haha 00:16:26 pikhq: hahaha what 00:16:41 SimonRC: i think the internet is more wild if anything 00:16:58 IIRC, RMS intentionally had no password on his account so that people could dial into MIT and get on the Internet. 00:17:10 hahahah 00:17:12 pikhq: very rmsy 00:17:22 i leave my wireless unencrypted 00:17:25 have fun guys :D 00:17:51 He also recommended that other people leave no passwords, so as to preserve anonymous access in MIT systems. 00:17:57 but there are still so many groups of people that are doing the same things but do not know about each other 00:18:12 SimonRC: yeah 00:18:14 OTOH, new internet is good too... 00:18:23 * tusho_ ponders writing a new listserv 00:18:23 thank god for universal reachibility 00:18:30 Amusingly, the GNU Hurd also preserves anonymous access. 00:18:30 A modern one that doesn't act like mailman. 00:18:36 pikhq: how? 00:18:51 Anyway, I mean, listservs aren't that hard right? 00:19:02 write it in BF! 00:19:04 When you get an email from an email in the subscriber list, you send it to everyone in the subscriber list with a footer. 00:19:15 when you get one to the control address, you interpret the body as some commands. 00:19:22 That's ... it. 00:19:22 It has 4 levels of mode bits: User, Group, Owner, and Anonymous... 00:19:29 And there is an anonymous user on the HURD. 00:19:34 UID 0. 00:19:43 what is root then? 00:19:48 Sorry. 00:19:50 UID -1. 00:19:53 Thinko. 00:19:59 Or maybe it was a null set? 00:20:02 Anyways; 00:20:05 hurd is definitely dead, though :) 00:20:15 I think I could write a listserv in a day. 00:20:17 I'll start right now. 00:20:24 Maybe start esolangs-prime ;) 00:20:33 A HURD installation's gettys spawn shells as anonymous. 00:20:48 umm 00:20:51 If you wish to login, you type "login username". 00:20:56 cool 00:21:22 tusho_: there's a perfectly good mailing list to which a bunch of people are already subscribed... :) 00:21:33 So, you can reasonably fuck around with a HURD system without having an account on it. 00:21:34 lament: And that gets no emails but spam 00:21:34 :P 00:21:44 How do they spam it anyway?! 00:21:49 Do they know how to sign up to lists? 00:22:04 pikhq: i assume you can disable that 00:22:21 Hm, I wonder. Do most listservs run their own SMTP server or whatever? 00:22:24 Or just hook into another? 00:23:54 tusho_: Probably. 00:24:32 Make init not spawn an anonymous shell, & voila. 00:24:47 http://snippets.dzone.com/posts/show/3932 <-- Hm. Are SMTP servers really this simple? 00:25:09 Well 00:25:09 http://snippets.dzone.com/posts/show/5152 00:25:10 more realistic 00:27:48 tusho_: minus the business logic, yes. 00:27:59 CakeProphet: the latter has some business logic 00:28:26 Hmm. 00:28:29 It even handles attachments, right? 00:28:35 Since it's all just strangely-encoded stuff. 00:29:00 doesn't look like it handles attachments, no. 00:29:17 CakeProphet: Aren't attachments just done by having weird things like 00:29:19 -- multipart doof bar 00:29:24 and having it encoded somehow? 00:30:13 with the proper headers, I believe. 00:30:15 yes 00:30:18 So. 00:30:20 it does handle attachments 00:30:26 where at? 00:30:36 CakeProphet: what i mean is 00:30:38 it passes them on fine 00:30:42 if it were to resend the message it stores 00:31:03 * tusho_ considers milkman as a name. 00:31:04 oh... then yes, most likely it does. 00:37:25 http://sourceforge.net/?abmode=1 00:37:27 nice redesign 00:37:39 * SimonRC goes to bed 00:38:24 Hmm. 00:38:27 * SimonRC goes to bed 00:38:34 SimonRC: Second time lucky? 00:38:34 DO listservs 00:38:39 run an smtp server? 00:38:39 generally 00:38:44 -!- shachaf has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 00:38:46 -!- shachaf has joined. 00:38:57 I wonder if I can send files from the Normish server using Gmail under lynx. 00:39:08 gmail requires a modern, js-enabled browser. 00:39:19 use scp 00:39:36 scp? 00:39:39 scp. 00:41:00 tusho_: no, it has a non-js mode 00:41:01 * SimonRC goes to bed 00:45:00 gmail has a non-js mode? 00:47:46 hey lets talk about something interesting 00:52:37 Let it be hereby resolved that we will now talk about something interesting. 00:52:40 Namely, the Iliad. 00:53:45 You see, some Greeks wanted to make a nomic that would run right on top of a server, with root privileges, and their best warrior, Achilles, was going to implement it. 00:53:55 dont you love the anachronisms in the Iliad? 00:54:06 And it's so applicable to daily life, even. 00:54:34 But then their leader, Agamemnon, saw someone else was offering to implement it instead, so Achilles got angry and left. 00:55:07 The Greeks were unhappy and all, because stuff wasn't getting done, so Achilles laid out the conditions for his return, and Agamemnon accepted, so he returned. 00:55:37 Now Achilles just has to kill Hector. 00:56:38 tusho_: did you know that because you decided to write a proposal system, your name will live forever but you will die an early death? 00:57:11 pardon 00:57:22 yeah. i kill hector tomorrow. 00:57:28 Yay! 00:59:21 yeah... gmail has an HTML mode. 00:59:24 bye for today 00:59:34 Bye. 01:00:40 -!- tusho_ has quit (Client Quit). 01:45:17 anachronism! 01:45:20 the sin of sins! 01:58:31 it would be fairly excellent 01:58:33 to have like 01:58:48 a language with a lot of simple operators that do implicit things 01:59:00 (3|2) == x 01:59:35 I guess you could conceptualize it as object oriented 01:59:38 but they're not really objects. 01:59:40 Perl. Maybe. 01:59:45 yes... Perl does that one 01:59:51 -!- megatron has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 01:59:55 mm skores 02:00:00 what does (3|2) == x do? 02:00:05 I was very excited when Perl 6 was announced to have that. 02:00:18 i agree 02:00:19 lamen returns true if x is 2 or 3 02:00:28 oh 02:00:34 mapping trees, oklotalk has those 02:00:40 -nod- 02:00:44 i wish javascript had that 02:00:47 i REALLY wish it did 02:00:53 there are so many times where it could be useful 02:01:17 flag == ("this" || "that" || ...) 02:01:20 also i have that on a higher level in, err, i forget in which language, so that it's automatically referred from types of functions 02:01:25 python has "in" 02:01:33 in JS we generally just do something like 02:01:37 right... but I like the idea of 02:01:42 if flag in ["this", "that", ...]: 02:01:48 ["this","that",...].indexOf(x) >= 0 02:01:55 "objectifying" certain operations 02:01:57 psygnisfive: ugh 02:01:58 so that they're transparent 02:02:02 lament: i know :( 02:02:03 in lots of code. 02:02:06 just use python 02:02:07 :D 02:02:18 lament: that's a bit different and you know it :D 02:02:23 JS arrays dont even have indexOf in IE 02:02:28 i have no idea why the smiley! 02:02:32 and they dont have a contains method either 02:02:40 you have to implement your own 02:02:44 its not impossible to do mind you 02:02:45 but 02:03:01 prototype or mootools to the rescue? 02:03:08 Array.prototype.contains = function(obj){ return this.indexOf(obj) != -1; } 02:03:15 but still 02:03:22 i think in most languages it's impossible to implement the general idea of mapping trees yourself 02:03:30 in JS, in only works on object keys 02:03:43 eg: "foo" in { foo: 1, bar: 2 } => true 02:03:46 but you can get close with oo+operator overloading ofc 02:03:59 you could also have array programming... but have it explicitly... implicitly map. 02:04:04 i like 'in' (as in python) more than the perl thing 02:04:15 more explicit, more simple, is not really a new language feature 02:04:26 follows occam 02:04:33 works with any container object 02:05:08 I like "the Perl thing" because it's... what I originally expected 02:05:10 like 02:05:15 the first thing I remember when I was working with boolean operators 02:05:24 whats the perl thing again? 02:05:29 x == (a|b|c)? 02:05:31 was "why the hell can't I do x == (2 and 1)" 02:05:32 yes 02:05:34 also goodbye 02:05:38 -!- lament has quit ("Lost terminal"). 02:05:48 i like both. i think they should be used for different things, honestly 02:05:49 of course I know why now 02:06:05 but it makes sense logically that it should be able to do that. 02:06:17 i've gone from "should have" to "naturally don't have" to "should have" back again to "should have as something you can add yourself" on that feature in languages 02:06:18 psygnisfive: well yeah... in is a containment check. 02:06:33 the perl one has a nice non-deterministic-like property 02:06:46 like 02:06:49 i would expect this: 02:06:54 1 == (1 or 2) 02:06:58 to return true 02:07:00 but this: 02:07:02 1 == (1 and 2) 02:07:06 to return (true and false) 02:07:07 yes. 02:07:10 ...hmmm 02:07:21 I would expect just false... 02:07:52 you mean like == (x and y) means == x && == y? 02:07:54 just false is what a mapping tree would do 02:08:02 ...more or less. 02:08:05 but not quite 02:08:06 i that makes sense. 02:08:07 like 02:08:20 a == (b and c) ==== ((a==b) and (a==c)) 02:08:22 (1 and 2) == (1 and 2) would also be true.... 02:08:37 basically once it makes sense, you apply everything, before that, you just build the mapping tree up 02:08:48 but i figure that nothing EVERY can be a and b 02:08:49 i mean 02:08:55 regardless of what a and b are 02:08:58 so long as a != b 02:09:09 theres nothing that == a and == b 02:09:10 ...the example I just gave would logically be true. 02:09:16 (1 and 2) makes no sense, typewise, so you make a mapping tree out of it, a lambda that applies the operator to things in all leaves, then evaluates the whole tree 02:09:35 cakeprophet: i dont get your example. i mean, i get it in one sense, but not in another 02:09:42 so when you do 1 == (...), because == returns a boolean, you apply to all leaves the lambda (1 ==) 02:09:53 (1 and 2) == (1 and 2) makes sense in that the structures, etc match 02:09:54 you probably get it in the rational sense. 02:09:58 but not in the "I'm a programmer" sense 02:10:09 but it makes no sense given the other definitions 02:10:26 what other definitions? 02:10:33 the way the other things should because 02:10:36 plus, consider what i said before 02:10:38 if a != b 02:10:46 then x == (a and b) must return false 02:10:54 well (1 and 2) == (1 and 2) ===> ((1 and 2) == 1 and (1 and 2) == 2) ===> (1 == 1 and 2 == 1 and 1 == 2 and 2 == 2) 02:10:56 ...nope 02:10:59 in all cases 02:11:18 because if a != b, and x == (a and b) is equivalent to (x == a) && (x == b) 02:11:29 that makes sense when you're dealing with scalar values... but not values that are the combinations of scalars. 02:11:33 then the transitivity of equality would require that a == b 02:11:41 combinations of scalars using and? 02:12:08 i dont think we have a proper semantics for "anded" values 02:12:13 yes... just consider, not from any sort of formal definition, but from rational thinking 02:12:24 what would (1 and 2) = (1 and 2) be? 02:12:39 i dont know, because we havent defined what (1 and 2) _as a value_ is 02:12:45 i mean, before we establied that 02:12:51 == (x and y) 02:12:52 is equivalent to 02:12:56 == x and == y 02:13:06 but what should it be? the most obvious case? 02:13:13 because oyu said so? 02:13:17 er 02:13:22 no sorry oklopol did and i thought you did 02:13:33 nevermind :D 02:13:40 :) 02:13:42 but like i was suggesting earlier 02:13:44 what's the problem with just having it be a mapping tree which i've invented and fully specced years ago? 02:13:58 oklopol: nothing. 02:14:14 instinctually i would want to say that (1 and 2) is a single value that is simultaneously 1 and 2 02:14:39 quantum integer 02:14:44 I have yet to argue for any specific underlying implemntation... only consider what it should do in obvious cases. 02:14:53 which would be vaguely akin to a set 02:15:03 in the obvious case you mean 02:15:09 (x and y) == (x and y) 02:15:10 ? 02:15:22 what the hell does it look like it would be? 02:15:23 what is 2 == 2? 02:15:30 what is x == x 02:15:32 in all other logic ever 02:15:47 depends on your definitions. :D 02:15:53 in haskell [] == [] 02:15:57 but in JS [] != [] 02:16:05 it depends entirely on how you interpret these things 02:16:14 you could have "A and B" be a kinda "quantum set" that's simultaneously A and B, and A or B be something that's either 02:16:46 and then use some kinda cool collapsing to get nondeterminism yay 02:16:51 psygnisfive: not dealing with computer language here... purely logic. 02:16:53 in logic 02:16:55 x is always x 02:16:59 no, its not 02:17:06 because in logic you still have definitions 02:17:10 right 02:17:14 one of them being that x is always x.... 02:17:15 CakeProphet: no difference between logic and programming languages 02:17:16 ... 02:17:18 and it depends on which form of logic you're using 02:17:46 CakeProphet: you can have a formal system where [] isn't necessarily the same as another [] 02:17:56 that's true. 02:18:02 but we don't have that here. :) 02:18:09 we dont have ANYTHING 02:18:13 because we havent DEFINED anything 02:18:15 alright fine... 02:18:24 because you can define the concept of a "unique object", and just formally define non-structural, id-based equivalence 02:18:43 a duck != a duck in logic 02:19:03 psygnisfive: well that is a different thing 02:19:08 is it tho 02:19:21 a duck = x for which x is in the set of ducks 02:19:22 "a duck" because like x | Duck(x) 02:19:49 "a duck" is just a selector of an item from a collection 02:20:01 yes, i'm sure we both know the concept 02:20:12 well, let A be the set of all possible combinations formed by (x and y) 02:20:33 then is (1 and 2) not a selector on A? 02:20:34 we now have that x == x where x is any immutable value (numbers and boolean combinations) 02:21:00 ... 02:21:05 cakeprophet, ok 02:21:08 if you want to get all "depends on the definition" 02:21:10 that is my definition 02:21:15 ... 02:21:16 ok 02:21:41 but that was never the problem :) 02:21:50 then what? 02:22:15 the problem was whether or not (1 and 2) is a construction of a new anded entity, or isn't it 02:22:36 what else could it be? 02:22:43 it depends on your definition! 02:23:57 and then ofcourse, because we're talking about multiple values, how you evaluate == on such multiple valued entities is not inherently the same as how you evaluate it on single valued entities 02:24:00 it's a logical construct... I don't know what else you want. It exists as its own entity, but its equivalences with other entities is based on its values. 02:24:01 because as you said 02:24:07 x == x for any immutable value of x 02:24:13 but (1 and 2) is not an immutable value 02:24:18 it is immutable valueS 02:24:35 psygnisfive: depends on your definition. ;) 02:24:39 in this case 02:24:39 exactly! 02:24:40 :) 02:24:48 is it is an immutable value consisting of immutable values. 02:24:50 ... 02:24:55 there is not append 02:25:01 for this construct 02:25:02 but is it one value, that is composed of others 02:25:08 or is it simply just multiple values not one 02:25:41 I would say it is both 02:25:45 because it makes little difference 02:25:53 ofcourse it makes a difference! 02:25:58 if its one value composed of other values 02:26:07 then 1 == (1 and 1) should always return false 02:26:18 and why is that? 02:26:23 since (1 and 1) is a composite that happens to be composed of the same thing 02:26:26 but its still COMPOSITE 02:26:36 if we say that (x and y) are composite. 02:26:40 basically what I am saying 02:27:03 basically what _I_ am saying is that there is no right answer, formally or otherwise 02:27:15 is there is no need to differenciate between it being one value of multiple values... or just being multiple values. 02:27:22 ...right. 02:27:29 I am telling you how I would like it to work. 02:27:32 ok. 02:27:48 well just provide a collection of examples 02:28:09 I would say my biggest collection of examples would be the English language. 02:28:25 when you say.... for example. 02:28:26 oh you dont want to go there.. :) 02:28:36 1 is 1 and 1 02:28:39 regardless of formal bullshit 02:28:46 everyone will answer no. 02:28:47 is that a true statement or not? 02:28:53 because 1 and 1 means 1+1 in normal english. 02:29:02 hahaha 02:29:13 ...got me there. 02:29:21 im a linguist, baby 02:29:26